diff options
Diffstat (limited to '40499-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 40499-8.txt | 84613 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 84613 deletions
diff --git a/40499-8.txt b/40499-8.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 8e7d1b0..0000000 --- a/40499-8.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,84613 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from -1789 to 1856, Vol. I (of 16), by Thomas Hart Benton - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - - -Title: Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. I (of 16) - -Author: Thomas Hart Benton - -Release Date: August 18, 2012 [EBook #40499] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DEBATES OF CONGRESS, 1789-1856 *** - - - - -Produced by Curtis Weyant, Josephine Paolucci and the -Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. - - - - - - - - - -BENTON'S ABRIDGMENT OF THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS. - - - - -ABRIDGMENT OF THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS, - -FROM 1789 TO 1856. - -FROM GALES AND SEATON'S ANNALS OF CONGRESS; FROM THEIR REGISTER OF -DEBATES; AND FROM THE OFFICIAL REPORTED DEBATES, BY JOHN C. RIVES. - -BY - -THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRTY YEARS' VIEW. - -VOL. I. - -NEW YORK: -D. APPLETON & COMPANY, 346 & 348 BROADWAY. - -CHICAGO: -S. C. GRIGGS & CO., 111 LAKE ST. - -1857. - - -ENTERED according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by - -D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, - -In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New -York. - - - - -PREFACE. - - -The title-page discloses the sources from which this abridgment is made, -and shows them all to be authentic, and reliable,--well known to the -public, and sanctioned by resolves of Congress. Of the latter of these -authorities--"Gales and Seaton's Register of Debates," "The -Congressional Globe and Appendix, by Blair and Rives," and the same -afterwards by "John C. Rives"--it is not necessary to speak, further -than to remind the reader, that they are original reports, made either -by the publishers or their special reporters, and revised by the -speakers, and accepted as authority by Congress; and therefore needing -no historical elucidation to show their correctness. But of the -first--"The Annals of Congress by Gales and Seaton"--being a -compilation, a special, but brief notice is necessary to show the credit -to which they are entitled. And first, of the qualifications of the -compilers for their work. To education and talent, and a particular turn -for political disquisition and history, they added, at the time, more -than forty years' personal connection with the Debates of Congress, as -reporters and publishers of the speeches and proceedings in that body. -Both of these gentlemen reported, on extraordinary occasions; and both -with great aptitude and capacity for the business, and Mr. Gales -especially, (under whose particular care the compilation of the Annals -was made,)--of whom Mr. Randolph, a most competent judge, was accustomed -to say, that he was the most perfect reporter he had ever known--a -perfection which resulted not merely from manual facility in noting -down what was said, but from quickness and clearness of apprehension, -and a full knowledge of the subject spoken upon.[1] To this capacity for -the work, these gentlemen added peculiar advantages for knowing and -reaching the sources of information. The father of one of them, and the -father-in-law of the other,--(Mr. Joseph Gales, Senior,)--had been an -early reporter of the Debates of Congress;--in the time of Washington -and the first Mr. Adams,--and, of course, a collector and preserver of -all contemporary reports. These came into their hands, with ample -knowledge of all the sources from which further collections could be -made. To these capabilities and advantages, were added the pride of -character which exults in producing a perfect work;--and they spared -neither pains nor cost to produce such a work--and succeeded. The -following extracts from a letter of the late Mr. Justice Story, of the -Supreme Court of the United States, dated January 14th, 1837--and from -one from Mr. Justice McLean, still of that high court, dated 24th of -February, 1843--sufficiently attest the value of the Compilation, and -the excellence of its execution. Mr. Justice Story says: - -"I have examined these volumes with great attention, and I am entirely -satisfied with the plan and execution of them. I have, for many years, -deemed the publication of the Debates in Congress, interwoven as they -should be, and as they are in your plan, with the proceedings -explanatory of them, one of the most important and valuable enterprises -for public patronage. In an historical view, it will reflect the -strongest and best lights upon the nature and operations of the -Government itself, its powers, its duties, and its policy. As a means of -expounding and interpreting the Constitution itself, it can scarcely be -over-estimated. When I was employed in the task of preparing my -Commentaries on the Constitution I constantly had recourse to this -source of information in all cases within my reach. I had occasion then -deeply to regret, however, that many of my researches terminated in -disappointment from there not being any complete collection of the -debates in print, or at least none in any one repository, or without -large chasms, which it was difficult if not impossible to supply. If -any such collection had existed, I am satisfied that it would have -enabled me to make my own work far more accurate, full, and satisfactory -than it now is. The Parliamentary Debates of England have been long -since published, and constitute, in a political and historical view, -some of the most authentic and useful documents for statesmen and -jurists which have ever issued from the press. They are an indispensable -part of the library of every real British statesman. A similar -publication of all the Debates in Congress would be, if possible, of -more permanent and extensive value to us, since questions of -constitutional law and general public policy are more frequent topics of -public debate here than in England. Indeed, I do not well see how -American statesmen, seeking a profound knowledge of the nature and -operations of our Government, can well do without them. At all events, -if published, they would and ought to be found in the library of every -American statesman, lawyer, and judge, who should aspire to an exact or -thorough knowledge of our Constitution, laws, or national policy." - -Mr. Justice McLean says: - -"I have read with much interest your proposal to publish the Debates in -Congress from the adoption of the Constitution. This is an undertaking -of great magnitude, and will require large expenditures: but the work -will embody a mass of information in regard to the history and policy of -the Government, which can be found nowhere else. There is no subject -within the action of the Government, which will not be found discussed -in these volumes. They will contain materials rich in facts and talent -for the writer of history, and will reward the researches of all who may -wish to acquire a thorough knowledge of our system of government. This -work when completed will become, I think, more interesting and valuable -to this country, than are the Parliamentary Debates in England. The -questions considered, (from the nature of our Government, and especially -in regard to our domestic relations,) are more diversified than the -Debates in Parliament; and I have no doubt, that the general ability -displayed in the American Congress, will not suffer in comparison with -that of the British Parliament. Our statesmen and jurists will find in -these Debates much to guide them in the performance of their public -duties; for it is from the history of that time that knowledge is -acquired for an enlightened public action. If our Government is to be -handed down to those who come after us, these volumes will increase in -value with the progress of time, and will be one of the richest -memorials of our early enterprise and patriotism, and the best evidence -of our national advancement." - -And to these opinions of these two eminent jurists of the value of these -Annals, and the qualifications of the publishers for their task, and the -merits of their work, is to be added the encouraging opinion of Mr. -Madison, given at the commencement of the enterprise, in the year -1818,--near forty years ago,--when, in a letter to _Messrs._ Gales and -Seaton, he said: - -"The work to which you have turned your thoughts, is one which justly -claims for it _my_ favorable wishes. A legislative history of our -country is of too much interest not to be at some day undertaken; and -the longer it is postponed, the more difficult and deficient the -execution becomes. In the event of your engaging in it, I shall -cheerfully contribute any suggestions in my power as to the sources from -which materials may be drawn; but I am not aware, at present, of any not -likely to occur to yourselves." - -Such is the value which these eminent men place upon these annals of our -earlier Congresses, and these annals embrace the whole period during -which our Government was presided over by those who helped to make -it--the whole period from Washington to Monroe inclusive--a period of -thirty-five years, and covering more than half the time that our -Government has existed. The two Justices of the Supreme Court who gave -their opinion of the work, and who were then (as one of them still is) -in the actual discharge of great public duties, have declared the -personal benefit which they derived from the compilation--one of them -(Mr. Justice Story) going so far as to say that his own work--the -Commentaries upon the Constitution--(deemed faultless by others)--would -have been "more accurate, full and satisfactory," if the Annals had been -published before them. With such opinions in favor of the Annals, no -more need be said to show their value to the rising generations; and in -abridging them, the author feels that he is only making accessible to -the community what is now inaccessible to it, on account of quantity and -price; and useless (nearly), if accessible, on account of the obsolete -or irrelevant matter which overlays and buries the useful. As late as -the year 1840, the publishers of the Annals say, in a Memorial to -Congress, that they had sold to individuals but twenty sets of their -work; and the present enterprising and faithful publisher of the -Congress Debates, (Mr. John C. Rives,) says he sells but some three or -four sets a year of his valuable and voluminous work;--and these, not to -individuals, but to institutions. It is the Congress subscription alone, -that has enabled the publishers of all these works to bring them out; -and no public money was ever more worthily applied: but still Congress -cannot supply the community. - -Mr. Madison, in his letter of characteristic modesty to _Messrs._ Gales -and Seaton, speaks of their (then) intended work, as one which justly -claimed _his_ favorable wishes. And well it might! for nowhere, in all -the just and impressive eulogiums which have been pronounced upon him, -does he appear to such advantage as in his own modest, temperate, -luminous, and patriotic speeches during his service in Congress--putting -that new Government into operation, of which he was one of the founders, -and giving to all its machinery, a smooth, clean, and harmonious -working. And so of innumerable others--illustrious men, and his -compatriots--national reputations in their day, but contracting into -local names under the progress of time, for want of a record of their -patriotic labors, of national circulation, and popular accessibility. Of -that character, it is the desire of the author to make this Abridgment. -It is to him a labor of love and of pride--resuscitating the patriotic -dead, putting them in scene again, passing them in long procession over -an extended domain--no one skipped, and each in his place, with the best -of his works in his hand. It is a work of justice to them, and may be of -advantage to the present age, and to posterity, by reproducing for study -and imitation, the words and conduct of the wise, just, modest, -patriotic, intelligent, and disinterested men, who carried their country -through a momentous revolution--moulded that country into one brotherly -Union--and then put the Government they had formed into operation, in -the same fraternal spirit of "_amity, mutual deference and concession_," -in which they had made it. - - - - -INTRODUCTION. - - -The debates of Congress have been accruing for near seventy years, and -fill more than an hundred volumes, and cannot be purchased for less than -$500, nor advantageously used, on account of the quantity of superfluous -matter which they contain. They are printed in full by Congress, and -ought to be so, and a small distribution is made among the members; but -this distribution cannot reach the community, and would be nearly -useless if it did, from the quantity of obsolete, local and transient -matter which overloads them. In the mean time, these debates contain the -history of the working of our Government from its foundation--preserve -and hand down to posterity the wisdom of ages--show what has been done, -and how it was done--and shed light upon the study of all impending -questions; for there is not a question of the day, and will not be while -the Government continues, which will not be illustrated by something -previously said in these debates. - -All works consisting of periodical accumulations require periodical -abridgment, in which, being relieved of what is superfluous, the -residuum becomes more valuable from the disencumbrance--of easier use to -the reader--and more accessible to the community, from the diminution of -price and quantity. Even the reports of the Supreme Court of the United -States, though comparatively free from redundant or obsolete matter, -have undergone abridgment--three volumes reduced to one--and become more -valuable from the reduction. The same may be done with these debates, -and with a far greater license of reduction, from the very nature of -popular debating. Some fifteen or sixteen octavo volumes, double -columns, are expected to contain all that retains a surviving interest -in the (more than) one hundred volumes, now surcharged with the full -debates. - -The abridgment will not be restricted to the speeches of the celebrated -orators, but extend to those of the business men, and to the plainest -speakers--who are often the members who give the most useful -information. Full speeches are not expected to be given, there being -none, after a short time, which do not contain much matter that has lost -its interest. Many entire heads of reported proceedings and discussions -would be omitted: as--The morning presentation of petitions, often the -same for ten or twenty years, and presented in both Houses at the same -time: discussion on private bills, which have no general interest: mere -personalities: the endless repetition of yeas and nays, sometimes -recorded an hundred times in contests about the same bill, when three or -four sets would be sufficient to show the opinion of every member upon -every material point: repetitions of speeches, for it is impossible that -a member speaking for ten or twenty sessions on the same subject, -(tariff, internal improvement, national bank, &c.) should not repeat the -same thing over and over again. - -The work is intended to be national, such as would commend itself to the -study, and come within the reach, of all who aspire to a share in the -public affairs, either State or Federal; or who wish to understand the -history and working of their own Government. It is the only way in which -the wisdom of the earlier generation of our statesmen who put the -Government into operation--the Madisons, Gallatins, John Marshalls, -William B. Giles, the Fisher Ames, Roger Shermans, &c.--can be made -known to the present or future ages; and it is the best way in which the -speeches of those who have lived in our own day, even the most eminent, -can be diffused. For the speeches of no one, published in mass and -alone, can have more than a local circulation; while judicious -selections from a whole debate, enlivened by the vivacity of contention, -going into a general work of this kind, must have a general circulation, -and carry the name of the speaker, and the best of his speaking, into -every part of the Union. - -Some notes, or commentaries, will be added by the author, discriminated -from the text, to mark great starting, or turning points, in our -legislative history, with a view to assist the reader in making the -practical applications which give utility to knowledge. For example: At -the beginning of the first tariff debate in the first session of the -first Congress, he will show that Mr. Madison compressed into twenty-two -short lines, of eight or nine words each, all the principles of impost -and tonnage duties which have governed all wise legislation upon the two -subjects from that time to the present--namely: Specific duties the -rule--_ad valorems_ the exception: revenue the object--incidental -encouragement to home industry the incident: specifics on all the -leading and staple articles--_ad valorems_ on the inferior remainder: -discrimination between articles of luxury and necessity, so as to put -the burthen on the former--and between articles made, or not made, at -home, so as to give encouragement to the home article: and all these -duties moderate, so as not to shackle trade or agriculture. These were -his principles on impost duties. Those on tonnage consisted of -discriminations in favor of our own ships, and in favor of nations -having treaties of commerce with us, so as to encourage our own -ship-building and navigation, and also to stimulate all nations to make -commercial treaties with us. And thus, every object of impost -legislation was provided for:--revenue for the Government, encouragement -to home industry, exemption from burthen to trade and agriculture. - -Then, at the end of that debate, (which began in April, and ended in -May,) it will be shown that a rate of duties was established, -corresponding with these principles--all moderate, and adapted each to -its object: five per centum on the lowest class of _ad valorems_, seven -and a half on the next, and fifteen for the highest, and it of luxuries. -The specific duties, applicable to the mass of the importations, at the -same low rate; and this low rate, on the small importation of that time, -and with the economy of that time, producing seven times the amount of -revenue necessary for the "_support_" of the Government! leaving six -sevenths to go to the public debt and Indian wars. The same rates of -duty, with the same economy, ought to be equally sufficient now upon a -sevenfold importation of dutiable goods. - -The Emperor Justinian, in compiling his Institutes, commended their -study to the liberal-minded youth of the empire who aspired to -employment in the government; for that emperor, although a great and -victorious general, yet placed the arts of peace and government above -the exploits of war, and wished to see law and order, more than arms, -studied and cultivated in his dominion. The great Emperor Napoleon had -the same appreciation of legal and civil studies; and hence the Four -Codes, at the digest of which he personally assisted, and the -conception and execution of which do so much honor to his memory. In our -own government the career of public employment is open to all, and -should be prepared for by all who aspire to enter it. Of elementary -political works we have many, and excellent; but most of them only teach -principles, and that abstractly, without practice. Practical works are -wanted to complete the study, and of these the most ample and least -ungrateful may be a well-considered and impartial abridgment of the -Debates of Congress. - -And here the Author discharges an obligation of gratitude and justice to -the earlier generation of our statesmen. He owes what he is to them. His -political principles were learnt in their school--his knowledge obtained -from their works--his patriotism confirmed by their example--his love of -the Union exalted by their teaching. - - THE AUTHOR. - - WASHINGTON CITY, May, 1856. - - - - -FIRST CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION. - -HELD AT THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MARCH 4 TO SEPTEMBER 29, 1789. - -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,--GEORGE WASHINGTON. - -PROCEEDINGS[2] IN THE SENATE. - - -WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1789. - -This being the day for the meeting of the new Congress, the following -members of the Senate appeared and took their seats:[3] - -From New Hampshire, JOHN LANGDON and PAINE WINGATE. - -From Massachusetts, CALEB STRONG. - -From Connecticut, WILLIAM S. JOHNSON and OLIVER ELLSWORTH. - -From Pennsylvania, WILLIAM MACLAY and ROBERT MORRIS. - -From Georgia, WILLIAM FEW. - -The members present not being a quorum, they adjourned from day to day, -until - - -WEDNESDAY, March 11. - -When the same members being present as on the 4th instant, it was agreed -that a circular should be written to the absent members, requesting -their immediate attendance. - - -THURSDAY, March 12. - -No additional members appearing, the members present adjourned from day -to day, until - - -WEDNESDAY, March 18. - -When no additional members appearing, it was agreed that another -circular should be written to eight of the nearest absent members, -particularly desiring their attendance, in order to form a quorum. - - -THURSDAY, March 19. - -WILLIAM PATERSON, from New Jersey, appeared and took his seat. - - -FRIDAY, March 20. - -No additional member appeared. - - -SATURDAY, March 21. - -RICHARD BASSETT, from Delaware, appeared and took his seat. - -A sufficient number of members to form a quorum not appearing, the -members present adjourned from day to day, until - - -SATURDAY, March 28. - -JONATHAN ELMER, from New Jersey, appeared and took his seat. - -No other member appearing, an adjournment took place from day to day, -until - - -MONDAY, April 6. - -RICHARD HENRY LEE, from Virginia, then appearing, took his seat and -formed a quorum of the whole Senators of the United States. - -The credentials of the members present being read and ordered to be -filed, the Senate proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a President for -the sole purpose of opening and counting the votes for President of the -United States. - -JOHN LANGDON was elected. - -_Ordered_, That Mr. ELLSWORTH inform the House of Representatives that a -quorum of the Senate is formed; that a President is elected for the sole -purpose of opening the certificates, and counting the votes of the -electors of the several States, in the choice of a President and Vice -President of the United States; and that the Senate is now ready, in the -Senate Chamber, to proceed in the presence of the House, to discharge -that duty; and that the Senate have appointed one of their members to -sit at the clerk's table, to make a list of the votes as they shall be -declared; submitting it to the wisdom of the House to appoint one or -more of their members for the like purpose. - -Mr. ELLSWORTH reported that he had delivered the message; and Mr. -BOUDINOT, from the House of Representatives, informed the Senate that -the House is ready forthwith to meet them, to attend the opening and -counting of the votes of the electors of the President and Vice -President of the United States. - -The Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives attended in -the Senate Chamber; and the President elected for the purpose of -counting the votes, declared that the Senate and House of -Representatives had met, and that he, in their presence, had opened and -counted the votes of the electors for President and Vice President of -the United States, which were as follows: - -[Transcriber's Note: Legend Created to make table fit.] - -A = George Washington, Esq. -B = John Adams, Esq. -C = Samuel Huntingdon, Esq. -D = John Jay, Esq. -E = John Hancock, Esq. -F = Robert H. Harrison, Esq. -G = George Clinton, Esq. -H = John Rutledge, Esq. -I = John Milton, Esq. -J = James Armstrong, Esq. -K = Edward Telfair, Esq. -L = Benjamin Lincoln, Esq. - -STATES. - - A B C D E F G H I J K L -New Hampshire, 5 5 -Massachusetts, 10 10 -Connecticut, 7 5 2 -New Jersey, 6 1 .. 5 -Pennsylvania, 10 8 .. .. 2 -Delaware, 3 .. .. 3 -Maryland, 6 .. .. .. .. 6 -Virginia, 10 5 .. 1 1 .. 3 -South Carolina, 7 .. .. .. 1 .. .. 6 -Georgia, 5 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2 1 1 1 - - Total, 69 34 2 9 4 6 3 6 2 1 1 1 - -Whereby it appeared that GEORGE WASHINGTON, Esq. was elected President, -and JOHN ADAMS, Esq. Vice President of the United States of America. - -Mr. MADISON, from the House of Representatives, thus addressed the -Senate: - - MR. PRESIDENT: I am directed by the House of - Representatives to inform the Senate, that the House have - agreed that the notifications of the election of the - President and of the Vice President of the United States, - should be made by such persons, and in such manner, as the - Senate shall be pleased to direct. - -And he withdrew. - -Whereupon, the Senate appointed CHARLES THOMSON, Esq. to notify GEORGE -WASHINGTON, Esq. of his election to the office of President of the -United States of America, and Mr. SYLVANUS BOURN, to notify JOHN ADAMS, -Esq. of his election to the office of Vice President of the said United -States. - -A letter was received from James Duane, Esq. enclosing resolutions of -the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty, of the city of New York, tendering -to Congress the use of the City Hall. - -James Mathews was elected doorkeeper. - - -TUESDAY, April 7. - -Messrs. ELLSWORTH, PATERSON, MACLAY, STRONG, LEE, BASSETT, FEW, and -WINGATE, were appointed a committee to bring in a bill for organizing -the Judiciary of the United States. - -Messrs. ELLSWORTH, LEE, STRONG, MACLAY, and BASSETT, were appointed a -committee to prepare rules for the government of the two Houses in cases -of conference, and to take under consideration the manner of electing -chaplains, and to confer thereupon with a committee of the House of -Representatives. - -The same committee were also to prepare rules for conducting the -business of the Senate. - - -WEDNESDAY, April 8. - -The Senate proceeded to ballot for a Secretary, and SAMUEL ALYNE OTIS, -Esq. was elected. - -Cornelius Maxwell was appointed messenger. - - -THURSDAY, April 9. - -Messrs. LANGDON, JOHNSON, and FEW, were appointed a committee to make -arrangements for receiving the President, and were empowered to confer -with any committee of the House of Representatives that may be appointed -for that purpose. - - -MONDAY, April 13. - -RALPH IZARD, from South Carolina, CHARLES CARROLL, from Maryland, and -GEORGE REED, from Delaware, appeared and took their seats. - -The report of the committee to prepare rules for conducting the business -of the Senate was read, and ordered to lie for consideration. - -Messrs. JOHNSON, IZARD, and MACLAY, were appointed a committee to confer -with any committee appointed on the part of the House of -Representatives, upon the future disposition of the papers in the office -of the late Secretary of Congress, and report thereon. - -The committee appointed to make arrangements for receiving the -President, were directed to settle the manner of receiving the Vice -President also. - -Mr. CARROLL and Mr. IZARD were added to the Judiciary Committee. - - -TUESDAY, April 14. - -TRISTRAM DALTON, from Massachusetts, appeared and took his seat. - -A letter was written to the mayor of the city of New York, by the -President of the Senate, acknowledging the respect shown to the -Government, and accepting of the offer made by him of the City Hall for -the use of Congress. - - -MONDAY, April 20. - -JOHN HENRY, from Maryland, and JAMES GUNN, from Georgia, appeared and -took their seats. - -Messrs. STRONG and IZARD were appointed a committee to wait on the Vice -President, and conduct him to the Senate Chamber. - - -TUESDAY, April 21. - -The committee appointed to conduct the Vice President to the Senate -Chamber, executed their commission, and Mr. LANGDON, the Vice President -_pro tempore_, meeting the Vice President on the floor of the Senate -Chamber, addressed him as follows. - - SIR: I have it in charge from the Senate, to introduce you - to the chair of this House; and, also, to congratulate you - on your appointment to the office of Vice President of the - United States of America. - -[After which Mr. Langdon conducted the Vice President to the chair, when -the Vice President addressed the Senate in a speech of congratulation on -the successful formation of the Federal Union, the adoption of the -Federal Constitution, and the auspicious circumstances under which the -new government came into operation, under the presidency of him who had -led the American armies to victory, and conducted by those who had -contributed to achieve Independence.] - - -FRIDAY, April 24. - -On motion, to reconsider the commission of the committee appointed the -23d instant, to report what titles shall be annexed to the offices of -President and Vice President. Passed in the affirmative. - -On motion, that the following words, "What titles it will be proper to -annex to the offices of President and of Vice President of the United -States; if any other than those given in the Constitution," be struck -out. Passed in the negative. - -On motion, that the words "style or" before the word "title," be added. -Passed in the affirmative. - - -SATURDAY, April 25. - -The Right Reverend SAMUEL PROVOST was elected Chaplain. - -A letter from CHARLES THOMSON, Esq., dated the 24th of April, 1789, -directed to the President of the Senate, purporting his having delivered -to General WASHINGTON the certificate of his being elected President of -the United States, was read, and ordered to be filed. - -The committee appointed to consider of the time, place, and manner, in -which, and of the person by whom, the oath prescribed by the -Constitution shall be administered to the President of the United -States, and to confer with a committee of the House appointed for that -purpose, report: - - That the President hath been pleased to signify to them, - that at any time or place which both Houses may think - proper to appoint, and any manner which shall appear most - eligible to them, will be convenient and acceptable to - him; that requisite preparations cannot probably be made - before Thursday next; that the President be on that day - formally received by both Houses in the Senate Chamber; - that the Representatives' Chamber being capable of - receiving the greater number of persons, that, therefore, - the President do take the oath in that place, and in the - presence of both Houses. - - That, after the formal reception of the President in the - Senate Chamber, he be attended by both Houses to the - Representatives' Chamber, and that the oath be administered - by the Chancellor of the State of New York. - - The committee farther report it as their opinion, that it - will be proper that a committee of both Houses be appointed - to take order for conducting the business. Read and - accepted. - -Whereupon, Mr. LEE, Mr. IZARD, and Mr. DALTON, on the part of the -Senate, together with a committee that may be appointed on the part of -the House of Representatives, were empowered to take order for -conducting the business. - -An order of the House of Representatives, concurring in the appointment -of a committee on their part to confer with a committee appointed on the -24th instant, on the part of the Senate, to consider and report, "what -style, &c., it will be proper to annex to the offices of President and -Vice President," was read, by which it appeared, that Mr. BENSON, Mr. -AMES, Mr. MADISON, Mr. CARROLL, and Mr. SHERMAN, were appointed on the -part of the House. - - -MONDAY, April 27. - -The committee appointed to take order for conducting the ceremonial of -the formal reception, &c., of the President, reported: - - That it appears to them more eligible that the oath should - be administered to the President in the outer gallery - adjoining the Senate Chamber, than in the Representatives' - Chamber, and therefore, submit to the respective Houses the - propriety of authorizing their committee to take order as - to the place where the oath shall be administered to the - President, the resolution of Saturday assigning the - Representatives' Chamber as the place, notwithstanding. - Read and accepted. - - _Resolved_, That after the oath shall have been - administered to the President, he, attended by the Vice - President, and members of the Senate, and House of - Representatives, proceed to St. Paul's Chapel, to hear - divine service, to be performed by the Chaplain of Congress - already appointed. Sent to the House of Representatives for - concurrence. - - -TUESDAY, April 28. - -Received from the House of Representatives, the report of a joint -committee on the ceremonial to be observed in administering the oath, -&c., to the President; and a bill to regulate the time and manner of -administering certain oaths. The report was read and ordered to lie on -the table; and the bill received its first reading. - - -THURSDAY, April 30. - -Mr. LEE, in behalf of the committee appointed to take order for -conducting the ceremonial of the formal reception, &c., of the President -of the United States, having informed the Senate that the same was -adjusted, the House of Representatives were notified that the Senate -were ready to receive them in the Senate Chamber, to attend the -President of the United States, while taking the oath required by the -Constitution. Whereupon, the House of Representatives, preceded by their -Speaker, came into the Senate Chamber, and took the seats assigned them, -and the joint committee, preceded by their chairman, agreeably to order, -introduced the President of the United States to the Senate Chamber, -where he was received by the Vice President, who conducted him to the -chair, when the Vice President informed him, that "the Senate, and House -of Representatives of the United States, were ready to attend him to -take the oath required by the Constitution, and that it would be -administered by the Chancellor of the State of New York." To which the -President replied, he was ready to proceed; and being attended to the -gallery in front of the Senate Chamber, by the Vice President and -Senators, the Speaker and Representatives, and the other public -characters present, the oath was administered. After which, the -Chancellor proclaimed, "_Long live George Washington, President of the -United States_." - -The PRESIDENT, having returned to his seat, after a short pause arose, -and addressed the Senate and House of Representatives as follows:[4] - - _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could - have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which - the notification was transmitted by your order, and - received on the 14th day of the present month. On the one - hand, I was summoned by my country, whose voice I can never - hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I - had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my - flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum - of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every - day more necessary, as well as more dear to me, by the - addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent - interruptions in my health, to the gradual waste committed - on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and - difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country - called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and - most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny - into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with - despondence one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from - nature, and unpractised in the duties of civil - administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own - deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions, all I dare aver - is, that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty - from a just appreciation of every circumstance by which it - might be effected. All I dare hope is that if, in executing - this task, I have been too much swayed by a grateful - remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate - sensibility to this transcendent proof of the confidence of - my fellow-citizens, and have thence too little consulted my - incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and - untried cares before me, my error will be palliated by the - motives which misled me, and its consequences be judged by - my country, with some share of the partiality in which they - originated. - - * * * * * - - To the preceding observations I have one to add, which will - be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. - It concerns myself, and will, therefore, be as brief as - possible. When I was first honored with a call into the - service of my country, then on the eve of an arduous - struggle for its liberties, the light in which I - contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every - pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no - instance departed. And being still under the impressions - which, produced it, I must decline, as inapplicable to - myself, any share in the personal emoluments which may be - indispensably included in a permanent provision for the - executive department; and must accordingly pray that the - pecuniary estimates for the station in which I am placed - may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual - expenditures as the public good may be thought to require. - - Having thus imparted to you my sentiments, as they have - been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I - shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once - more to the benign Parent of the human race, in humble - supplication, that since He has been pleased to favor the - American people with opportunities for deliberating in - perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with - unparalleled unanimity on a form of Government for the - security of their union, and the advancement of their - happiness, so his divine blessing may be equally - conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate - consultations, and the wise measures, on which the success - of this Government must depend. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - _April 30, 1789._ - -The President, the Vice President, the Senate, and House of -Representatives, &c., then proceeded to St. Paul's Chapel, where divine -service was performed by the chaplain of Congress, after which the -President was reconducted to his house by the committee appointed for -that purpose. - -The Vice President and Senate returned to the Senate Chamber; and, - -Upon motion, unanimously agreed, That a committee of three should be -appointed to prepare an answer to the President's speech. Mr. JOHNSON, -Mr. PATERSON, and Mr. CARROLL, were elected. - - -THURSDAY, May 7. - -The committee appointed to confer with such committee as might be -appointed on the part of the House of Representatives, to report what -style or titles it will be proper to annex to the offices of President -and of Vice President of the United States, if any other than those -given in the Constitution, reported. - -Which report was ordered to lie for consideration. - -The committee appointed to prepare an answer to the President's speech, -delivered to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United -States, reported as follows: - - SIR: We, the Senate of the United States, return you our - sincere thanks for your excellent speech delivered to both - Houses of Congress; congratulate you on the complete - organization of the Federal Government; and felicitate - ourselves and our fellow-citizens on your elevation to the - office of President; an office highly important by the - powers constitutionally annexed to it, and extremely - honorable from the manner in which the appointment is made. - The unanimous suffrage of the elective body in your favor, - is peculiarly expressive of the gratitude, confidence, and - affection of the citizens of America, and is the highest - testimonial at once of your merit and their esteem. We are - sensible, sir, that nothing but the voice of your - fellow-citizens could have called you from a retreat, - chosen with the fondest predilection, endeared by habit, - and consecrated to the repose of declining years. We - rejoice, and with us all America, that, in obedience to the - call of our common country, you have returned once more to - public life. In you all parties confide; in you all - interests unite; and we have no doubt that your past - services, great as they have been, will be equalled by your - future exertions; and that your prudence and sagacity as a - statesman will tend to avert the dangers to which we are - exposed, to give stability to the present Government, and - dignity and splendor to that country, which your skill and - valor, as a soldier, so eminently contributed to raise to - independence and empire. - - When we contemplate the coincidence of circumstances, and - wonderful combination of causes, which gradually prepared - the people of this country for independence; when we - contemplate the rise, progress, and termination of the late - war, which gave them a name among the nations of the earth; - we are, with you, unavoidably led to acknowledge and adore - the great Arbiter of the universe, by whom empires rise and - fall. A review of the many signal instances of divine - interposition in favor of this country claims our most - pious gratitude; and permit us, sir, to observe, that, - among the great events which have led to the formation and - establishment of a Federal Government, we esteem your - acceptance of the office of President as one of the most - propitious and important. - - In the execution of the trust reposed in us, we shall - endeavor to pursue that enlarged and liberal policy to - which your speech so happily directs. We are conscious that - the prosperity of each State is inseparably connected with - the welfare of all, and that, in promoting the latter, we - shall effectually advance the former. In full persuasion of - this truth, it shall be our invariable aim to divest - ourselves of local prejudices and attachments, and to view - the great assemblage of communities and interests committed - to our charge with an equal eye. We feel, sir, the force, - and acknowledge the justness of the observation, that the - foundation of our national policy should be laid in private - morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral - principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue; it is, - therefore, the duty of legislators to enforce, both by - precept and example, the utility, as well as the necessity, - of a strict adherence to the rules of distributive justice. - We beg you to be assured that the Senate will, at all - times, cheerfully co-operate in every measure which may - strengthen the Union, conduce to the happiness, or secure - and perpetuate the liberties of this great confederated - republic. - - We commend you, sir, to the protection of Almighty God, - earnestly beseeching him long to preserve a life so - valuable and dear to the people of the United States; and - that your administration may be prosperous to the nation, - and glorious to yourself. - - Read and accepted; and - - _Ordered_, That the Vice President should affix his - signature to the address, in behalf of the Senate. - - -FRIDAY, May 8. - -The report of the committee appointed to determine "What style or title -it will be proper to annex to the offices of President and Vice -President of the United States, if any other than those given in the -Constitution;" and to confer with a committee of the House of -Representatives appointed for the same purpose, was considered, and -disagreed to. - -The question was taken, "Whether the President of the United States -shall be addressed by the title of _His Excellency_?" and it passed in -the negative. - -On motion that a committee of three be appointed to consider and report -under what title it will be proper for the Senate to address the -President of the United States, Mr. LEE, Mr. ELLSWORTH, and Mr. JOHNSON, -were elected. - - -SATURDAY, May 9. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that -they had accepted the report of the committee appointed to consider what -style or title it will be proper to annex to the offices of President -and Vice President of the United States, if any other than those given -in the Constitution. - - _Ordered_, That Mr. FEW, Mr. MACLAY, and Mr. STRONG, be a - committee to view the apartments in the City Hall, and to - confer with any committee that may be appointed by the - House of Representatives for that purpose, and report how - the same shall be appropriated. - -The committee appointed to consider under what title it will be proper -for the Senate to address the President of the United States, reported; -the consideration of which was postponed until Monday next. - -The Secretary was charged with a message to the House of -Representatives, with the order of Senate passed the 7th instant, on the -mode adopted by the Senate in receiving communications from that House. - - _Ordered_, That Mr. LEE, Mr. ELLSWORTH, and Mr. JOHNSON, be - a committee to confer with any committee to be appointed by - the House of Representatives, on the difference of opinion - now subsisting between the two Houses, respecting the title - of the President of the United States; and, on motion for - reconsideration, the instruction to the committee was - agreed to, as follows: - - "That they consider and report under what title it will be - proper for the President of the United States in future to - be addressed, and confer thereon with such committee as the - House of Representatives may appoint for that purpose." - - -The Secretary carried to the House of Representatives the appointment of -a committee, on the part of the Senate, to view the rooms in the City -Hall, and to confer upon their appropriation; - -The rejection of the report of the committee appointed to consider what -style, &c., it will be proper to annex to the offices of President and -of Vice President; - -And the appointment of a committee on the part of the Senate to confer -on a title under which it will be proper to address the President of the -United States. - - -MONDAY, May 11. - - _Ordered_, That the consideration of the report of the - committee upon "the title by which it will be proper for - the Senate to address the President," be postponed until - Tuesday next. - - -TUESDAY, May 12. - - _Ordered_, That the committee appointed the 9th of May, to - consider "by what title it will be proper for the Senate to - address the President of the United States", be instructed - to confer with the committee of the House of - Representatives, agreeably to the proposition in their - message of this day. - - A motion for the committee, appointed to address the - President, to proceed, was postponed to Thursday next. - - -THURSDAY, May 14. - -The committee, appointed the 9th instant, to determine "under what title -it will be proper for the Senate to address the President," and to -confer with a committee of the House of Representatives "upon the -disagreeing votes of the Senate and House," informed the Senate that -they had conferred with a committee of the House of Representatives, but -could not agree upon a report. - -The committee appointed the 9th instant, "to consider and report under -what title it will be proper for the Senate to address the President of -the United States of America," reported: - - That, in the opinion of the committee, it will be proper - thus to address the President: "_His Highness, the - President of the United States of America, and Protector of - their Liberties_." - -Which report was postponed; and the following resolve was agreed to, to -wit: - - From a decent respect for the opinion and practice of - civilized nations, whether under monarchical or republican - forms of Government, whose custom is to annex titles of - respectability to the office of their Chief Magistrate; and - that, on intercourse with foreign nations, a due respect - for the majesty of the people of the United States may not - be hazarded by an appearance of singularity, the Senate - have been induced to be of opinion, that it would be proper - to annex a respectable title to the office of President of - the United States; but, the Senate, desirous of preserving - harmony with the House of Representatives, where the - practice lately observed in presenting an address to the - President was without the addition of titles, think it - proper, for the present, to act in conformity with the - practice of that House: therefore, - - _Resolved_, That the present address be "_To the President - of the United States_," without addition of title. - -A motion was made to strike out the preamble as far as the words "but -the Senate;" which passed in the negative: - -And on motion for the main question, it passed in the affirmative. - -The committee appointed to consider and report a mode of carrying into -effect the provision in the second clause of the third section of the -first article of the Constitution, reported; - -Whereupon, - - _Resolved_, That the Senators be divided into three - classes; - - The first to consist of Mr. Langdon, Mr. Johnson, Mr. - Morris, Mr. Henry, Mr. Izard, and Mr. Gunn; - - The second of Mr. Wingate, Mr. Strong, Mr. Paterson, Mr. - Bassett, Mr. Lee, Mr. Butler, and Mr. Few; - - And the third of Mr. Dalton, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Elmer, Mr. - Maclay, Mr. Read, Mr. Carroll, and Mr. Grayson. - - That three papers of an equal size, numbered 1, 2, and 3, - be, by the Secretary, rolled up and put into a box, and - drawn by Mr. Langdon, Mr. Wingate, and Mr. Dalton, in - behalf of the respective classes, in which each of them are - placed; and that the classes shall vacate their seats in - the Senate, according to the order of numbers drawn for - them, beginning with No. 1. - - And that, when Senators shall take their seats from States - that have not yet appointed Senators, they shall be placed - by lot in the foregoing classes, but in such manner as - shall keep the classes as nearly equal as may be in - numbers. - -The committee appointed to confer with a committee of the House of -Representatives, in preparing proper rules to be established for the -enrolment, &c. of the acts of Congress, reported; which report was -ordered to lie for consideration. - - _Ordered_, That the committee appointed to draft an answer - to the President's speech, wait on him, and request him to - appoint the time when it will be agreeable to receive the - address of the Senate, at his own house. - - -FRIDAY, May 15. - -The committee appointed to draft an answer to the President's speech -further reported; whereupon it was - - _Agreed_, That the Senate should wait on the President at - his own house on Monday next, at a quarter after 11 - o'clock, and that the Vice President then present the - address of the Senate, as agreed to on the 7th instant. - -The Senate proceeded to determine the classes, agreeably to the resolve -of yesterday, on the mode of carrying into effect the provision of the -second clause of the third section of the first article of the -Constitution; and the numbers being drawn, the classes were determined -as follows: - -Lot No. 1, drawn by Mr. Dalton, contained Mr. Dalton, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. -Elmer, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Read, Mr. Carroll, and Mr. Grayson; whose seats -shall, accordingly, be vacated in the Senate at the expiration of the -second year. - -Lot No. 2. drawn by Mr. Wingate, contained Mr. Wingate, Mr. Strong, Mr. -Paterson, Mr. Bassett, Mr. Lee, Mr. Butler, and Mr. Few; whose seats -shall, accordingly, be vacated in the Senate at the expiration of the -fourth year. - -Lot No. 3, drawn by Mr. Langdon, contained Mr. Langdon, Mr. Johnson, Mr. -Morris, Mr. Henry, Mr. Izard, and Mr. Gunn; whose seats shall, -accordingly, be vacated in the Senate at the expiration of the sixth -year. - - -MONDAY, May 18. - -Agreeably to the order of the 15th instant, the Senate waited on the -President of the United States at his own house, when the Vice -President, in their name, delivered to the President the address agreed -to on the 7th instant. To which the President of the United States was -pleased to make the following reply: - - GENTLEMEN: I thank you for your address, in which the most - affectionate sentiments are expressed in the most obliging - terms. The coincidence of circumstances which led to this - auspicious crisis, the confidence reposed in me by my - fellow-citizens, and the assistance I may expect from - counsels which will be dictated by an enlarged and liberal - policy, seem to presage a more prosperous issue to my - administration than a diffidence of my abilities had taught - me to anticipate. I now feel myself inexpressibly happy in - a belief that Heaven, which has done so much for our infant - nation, will not withdraw its providential influence before - our political felicity shall have been completed, and in a - conviction that the Senate will at all times co-operate in - every measure which may tend to promote the welfare of this - confederated republic. Thus supported by a firm trust in - the great Arbiter of the universe, aided by the collective - wisdom of the Union, and imploring the divine benediction - on our joint exertions in the service of our country, I - readily engage with you in the arduous but pleasing task of - attempting to make a nation happy. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - -THURSDAY, May 21. - -WILLIAM GRAYSON, from Virginia, appeared and took his seat. - - _Resolved_, That all bills on a second reading shall be - considered by the Senate in the same manner as if the - Senate were in a committee of the whole, before they shall - be taken up and proceeded on by the Senate, agreeably to - the standing rules, unless otherwise ordered. - - -MONDAY, May 25. - -The Senate to-day, for the first time, entered upon executive business, -having received from the President of the United States a communication -covering a report from the Secretary of War, on the negotiations of the -Governor of the Western Territory with certain northern and -north-western Indians, and the treaties made in consequence thereof at -Fort Harmar, on the 9th of January, 1789, which was read, and ordered to -lie on the table. - - -THURSDAY, May 28. - -The Senate proceeded in the consideration of the bill for laying a duty -on goods, wares and merchandises imported into the United States; and, -after debate, adjourned. - - -WEDNESDAY, June 3. - -_Ordered_, That Mr. LANGDON administer the oath to the Vice President; -which was done accordingly. - -And the Vice President administered the oath according to law, to the -following members: to Messrs. LANGDON, WINGATE, STRONG, DALTON, JOHNSON, -ELLSWORTH, PATERSON, MACLAY, MORRIS, READ, BASSETT, CARROLL, HENRY, LEE, -GRAYSON, IZARD, FEW, GUNN. - -The same oath was, by the Vice President, administered to the Secretary, -together with the oath of office. - - -MONDAY, June 8. - -PIERCE BUTLER, from South Carolina, appeared and took his seat. - -The Vice President administered the oath to Mr. Butler. - - -TUESDAY, June 16. - -The Senate entered on executive business. A communication from the -President informed them that Mr. JEFFERSON wished to return home, and he -proposed WILLIAM SHORT, Esq. to take his place as minister to France. -Laid on the table. - - -WEDNESDAY, June 17. - -The Senate went into executive business. They examined into the fitness -of Mr. SHORT to supply the place of Mr. JEFFERSON, but came to no -conclusion. - - -THURSDAY, June 18. - -The Senate went into executive business, and confirmed the appointment -of Mr. SHORT to take charge of our affairs at the court of France, -during the absence of the minister. - - -THURSDAY, June 25. - -The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill for establishing -an Executive Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign -Affairs; which was read the first time, and ordered to lie for -consideration. - - -FRIDAY, July 17. - -On motion, that, on the final question upon a bill or resolve, any -member shall have a right to enter his protest or dissent on the -journal, with reasons in support of such dissent, provided the same be -offered within two days after the determination on such final question: - -Passed in the negative. - - -TUESDAY, July 21. - -The Senate entered on executive business, and - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary of Foreign Affairs attend the Senate -to-morrow, and bring with him such papers as are requisite to give full -information relative to the consular convention between France and the -United States. - - -WEDNESDAY, July 22. - -The Senate were to-day mostly engaged in executive business. The -Secretary of Foreign Affairs attended, agreeably to order, and made the -necessary explanations; and the following resolution was entered -into.[5] - - -SATURDAY, July 25. - -RUFUS KING, from New York, appeared, and took his seat. - - -MONDAY, July 27. - -PHILIP SCHUYLER, from New York, appeared, and took his seat. - - -TUESDAY, July 28. - -On motion, the Senators from the State of New York proceeded to draw -lots for their classes, in conformity to the resolve of the 14th of May; -and two lots, No. 3, and a blank, being, by the Secretary, rolled up and -put into the box, Mr. SCHUYLER drew blank; and Mr. KING having drawn No. -3, his seat shall accordingly be vacated in the Senate at the expiration -of the sixth year. - -The Secretary proceeded to put two other lots into the box, marked Nos. -1 and 2; and Mr. SCHUYLER having drawn lot No. 1, his seat shall -accordingly be vacated in the Senate at the expiration of the second -year. - - -MONDAY, August 3. - -The Senate entered on executive business. The President communicated to -them a list of about one hundred appointments as collectors, naval -officers, and surveyors. The Senate advised and consented to about -one-half the list; the rest lay till to-morrow. - - -TUESDAY, August 4. - -A message from the House of Representatives brought up a bill for making -compensation to the President and Vice President of the United States, -and desired the concurrence of the Senate therein; - -Together with the appointment of Messrs. WADSWORTH, CARROLL, and -HARTLEY, a committee, to join with a committee of the Senate to be -appointed for the purpose, "to consider of and report when it will be -convenient and proper that an adjournment of the present session of -Congress should take place; and to consider and report such business, -now before Congress, necessary to be finished before the adjournment, -and such as may be conveniently postponed to the next session; and, -also, to consider and report such matters, not now before Congress, but -which it will be necessary should be considered and determined by -Congress before an adjournment." - -The Senate again entered on executive business, and advised and -confirmed all the remainder of the list of appointments presented -yesterday, one excepted. - - -FRIDAY, August 7. - -The Senate, in the absence of the Vice President, proceeded to elect a -President _pro tempore_; and the votes being collected and counted, the -Honorable JOHN LANGDON was unanimously appointed. - -A message from the President of the United States, by General Knox: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate:_ - - The business which has hitherto been under the - consideration of Congress has been of so much importance, - that I was unwilling to draw their attention from it to any - other subject. But the disputes which exist between some of - the United States and several powerful tribes of Indians, - within the limits of the Union, and the hostilities which - have, in several instances, been committed on the - frontiers, seem to require the immediate interposition of - the General Government. - - I have, therefore, directed the several statements and - papers which have been submitted to me on this subject, by - General Knox, to be laid before you for your information. - - While the measures of Government ought to be calculated to - protect its citizens from all injury and violence, a due - regard should be extended to those Indian tribes whose - happiness, in the course of events, so materially depends - on the national justice and humanity of the United States. - - If it should be the judgment of Congress that it would be - most expedient to terminate all differences in the southern - district, and to lay the foundation for future confidence, - by an amicable treaty with the Indian tribes in that - quarter, I think proper to suggest the consideration of the - expediency of instituting a temporary commission for that - purpose, to consist of three persons, whose authority - should expire with the occasion. How far such a measure, - unassisted by posts, would be competent to the - establishment and preservation of peace and tranquillity on - the frontiers, is also a matter which merits your serious - consideration. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - NEW YORK, _August 7, 1789_. - -The above message was ordered to lie for consideration.[6] - -Mr. MORRIS, in behalf of the committee on the bill for allowing a -compensation to the President and Vice President of the United States, -reported an amendment, to wit: - - To expunge, in the provision for the Vice President, "five - thousand dollars," and insert "six thousand dollars." - -On motion to reduce the provision for the President of the United -States, from "twenty-five thousand" to "twenty thousand dollars:" - -Passed in the negative. - -On motion to make the provision for the Vice President eight thousand -dollars, instead of five thousand dollars: - -Passed in the negative. - -The Senate entered on executive business. - -The following message from the President was laid before them: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate:_ - - My nomination of Benjamin Fishbourn for the place of naval - officer of the port of Savannah not having met with your - concurrence, I now nominate Lachlan McIntosh for that - office.[7] - - Whatever may have been the reasons which induced your - dissent, I am persuaded they were such as you deemed - sufficient. Permit me to submit to your consideration - whether, on occasions where the propriety of nominations - appears questionable to you, it would not be expedient to - communicate that circumstance to me, and thereby avail - yourselves of the information which led me to make them, - and which I would with pleasure lay before you. Probably my - reasons for nominating Mr. Fishbourn may tend to show that - such a mode of proceeding, in such cases, might be useful. - I will, therefore, detail them. - - First. While Colonel Fishbourn was an officer, in actual - service, and chiefly under my own eye, his conduct appeared - to me irreproachable; nor did I ever hear any thing - injurious to his reputation as an officer or a gentleman. - At the storming of Stony Point, his behavior was - represented to have been active and brave, and he was - charged by his General to bring the account of that - success to the head quarters of the army. - - Secondly. Since his residence in Georgia, he has been - repeatedly elected to the Assembly as a representative of - the county of Chatham, in which the port of Savannah is - situated, and sometimes of the counties of Glynn and - Camden; he has been chosen a member of the executive - council of the State, and has lately been president of the - same; he has been elected by the officers of the militia, - in the county of Chatham, lieutenant-colonel of the militia - in that district; and, on a very recent occasion, to wit, - in the month of May last, he has been appointed by the - council (on the suspension of the late collector) to an - office in the port of Savannah, nearly similar to that for - which I nominated him; which office he actually holds at - this time. To these reasons for nominating Mr. Fishbourn, I - might add that I received private letters of - recommendation, and oral testimonials in his favor, from - some of the most respectable characters in that State; but - as they were secondary considerations with me, I do not - think it necessary to communicate them to you. - - It appeared, therefore, to me, that Mr. Fishbourn must have - enjoyed the _confidence_ of the militia officers, in order - to have been elected to a military rank; the _confidence_ - of the freemen, to have been elected to the Assembly; the - _confidence_ of the Assembly, to have been selected for the - council; and the _confidence_ of the council, to have been - appointed collector of the port of Savannah. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - NEW YORK, _August 6, 1789_. - - -FRIDAY, August 21. - -The Senate entered on executive business. They proceeded to consider the -report made by Mr. IZARD, yesterday, as follows: - -The committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States, -and confer with him on the mode of communication proper to be pursued -between him and the Senate, in the formation of treaties, and making -appointments to offices, reported: - -Which report was agreed to. Whereupon, - - _Resolved_, That when nominations shall be made in writing - by the President of the United States to the Senate, a - future day shall be assigned, unless the Senate unanimously - direct otherwise, for taking them into consideration; that - when the President of the United States shall meet the - Senate in the Senate Chamber, the President of the Senate - shall have a chair on the floor, be considered as at the - head of the Senate, and his chair shall be assigned to the - President of the United States; that when the Senate shall - be convened by the President of the United States to any - other place, the President of the Senate and Senators shall - attend at the place appointed. The Secretary of the Senate - shall also attend to take the minutes of the Senate. - - That all questions shall be put by the President of the - Senate, either in the presence or absence of the President - of the United States; and the Senators shall signify their - assent or dissent by answering _viva voce_, aye or no.[8] - - -Another message was received from the President, viz: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate:_ - - The President of the United States will meet the Senate, in - the Senate Chamber, at half-past eleven o'clock to-morrow, - to advise with them on the terms of the treaty to be - negotiated with the Southern Indians. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - NEW YORK, _August 21, 1789_. - - -SATURDAY, August 22. - -The Senate again entered on executive business. - -The President of the United States came into the Senate Chamber, -attended by General Knox, and laid before the Senate the following -statement of facts, with the questions thereto annexed, for their advice -and consent: - - [Here follows the statement of facts, and the questions - thereto annexed, and the answer of the Senate to each - question.] - - -MONDAY, August 24. - -The Senate was to-day wholly engaged in executive business. - -The President of the United States being present in the Senate Chamber, -attended by General Knox, - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the state of facts and questions -thereto annexed, laid before them by the President of the United States, -on Saturday last. And the first question, viz: "In the present state of -affairs between North Carolina and the United States, will it be proper -to take any other measures for redressing the injuries of the Cherokees -than the one herein suggested?" being put, was answered in the -negative.[9] - -The third question, viz: "If the commissioners shall adjudge that the -Creek nation was fully represented at the three treaties with Georgia, -and that the cessions of land were obtained with the full understanding -and free consent of the acknowledged proprietors, and that the said -treaties ought to be considered as just and equitable: in this case, -shall the commissioners be instructed to insist on a formal renewal and -confirmation thereof? and, in case of a refusal, shall they be -instructed to inform the Creeks that the arms of the Union shall be -employed to compel them to acknowledge the justice of the said -cessions?" was wholly answered in the affirmative. - -The fourth question, and its four subdivisions, viz: "But if the -commissioners shall adjudge that the said treaties were formed with an -inadequate or unauthorized representation of the Creek nation, or that -the treaties were held under circumstances of constraint or unfairness -of any sort, so that the United States could not, with justice and -dignity, request or urge a confirmation thereof: in this case, shall the -commissioners, considering the importance of the Oconee lands to -Georgia, be instructed to use their highest exertions to obtain a -cession of said lands? If so, shall the commissioners be instructed, if -they cannot obtain the said cessions on better terms, to offer for the -same, and for the further great object of attaching the Creeks to the -Government of the United States, the following conditions: - -"1st. A compensation in money or goods, to the amount of ---- dollars; -the said amount to be stipulated to be paid by Georgia at the period -which shall be fixed, or in failure thereof, by the United States. - -"2d. A secure port on the Altamaha or on St. Mary's river, or at any -other place between the same, as may be mutually agreed to by the -commissioners and the Creeks. - -"3d. Certain pecuniary considerations to some, and honorary military -distinctions to other influential chiefs, on their taking oaths of -allegiance to the United States. - -"4th. A solemn guarantee by the United States to the Creeks of their -remaining territory, and to maintain the same, if necessary, by a line -of military posts," was wholly answered in the affirmative. The blank to -be filled at the discretion of the President of the United States. - -The fifth question, viz: "But if all offers should fail to induce the -Creeks to make the desired cessions to Georgia, shall the commissioners -make it an ultimatum?" was answered in the negative. - -The sixth question being divided, the first part, containing as follows, -viz: "If the said cessions shall not be made an ultimatum, shall the -commissioners proceed and make a treaty, and include the disputed lands -within the limits which shall be assigned to the Creeks?" was answered -in the negative. - -The remainder, viz: "If not, shall a temporary boundary be marked, -making the Oconee the line, and the other parts of the treaty be -concluded?" - -"In this case, shall a secure port be stipulated, and the pecuniary and -honorary considerations granted?" - -"In other general objects shall the treaties formed at Hopewell, with -the Cherokees, Chickasaws, and Choctaws, be the basis of a treaty with -the Creeks?" were all answered in the affirmative. - -On the seventh question, viz: "Shall the sum of twenty thousand dollars, -appropriated to Indian expenses and treaties, be wholly applied, if -necessary, to a treaty with the Creeks? if not, what proportion?" It was -agreed to advise and consent to appropriate the whole sum, if necessary, -at the discretion of the President of the United States. - -The President of the United States withdrew from the Senate Chamber, and -the Vice President put the question of adjournment; to which the Senate -agreed. - - -WEDNESDAY, September 16. - -The following message from the President of the United States was -received by the Secretary of War. - - _Gentlemen of the Senate:_ - - The Governor of the Western Territory has made a statement - to me of the reciprocal hostilities of the Wabash Indians, - and the people inhabiting the frontiers bordering on the - river Ohio, which I herewith lay before Congress. - - The United States, in Congress assembled, by their acts of - the 21st day of July, 1787, and of the 12th August, 1788, - made a provisional arrangement for calling forth the - militia of Virginia and Pennsylvania in the proportions - therein specified. - - As the circumstances which occasioned the said arrangement - continue nearly the same, I think proper to suggest to your - consideration the expediency of making some temporary - provision for calling forth the militia of the United - States for the purposes stated in the constitution, which - would embrace the cases apprehended by the Governor of the - Western Territory. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - _September_ 16, 1789. - - -THURSDAY, September 17. - -The Senate entered on executive business. - -The following message was received from the President of the United -States: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate:_ - - It doubtless is important that all treaties and compacts - formed by the United States with other nations, whether - civilized or not, should be made with caution and executed - with fidelity. - - It is said to be the general understanding and practice of - nations, as a check on the mistakes and indiscretions of - ministers or commissioners, not to consider any treaty - negotiated and signed by such officers as final and - conclusive, until ratified by the sovereign or government - from whom they derive their powers. This practice has been - adopted by the United States respecting their treaties with - European nations, and I am inclined to think it would be - advisable to observe it in the conduct of our treaties with - the Indians; for though such treaties being, on their part, - made by their chiefs or rulers, need not be ratified by - them, yet, being formed on our part by the agency of - subordinate officers, it seems to be both prudent and - reasonable that their acts should not be binding on the - nation until approved and ratified by the Government. It - strikes me that this point should be well considered and - settled, so that our national proceedings, in this respect, - may become uniform, and be directed by fixed and stable - principles. - - The treaties with certain Indian nations, which were laid - before you with my message of the 25th May last, suggested - two questions to my mind, viz: 1st, Whether those treaties - were to be considered as perfected, and, consequently, as - obligatory, without being ratified? If not, then, 2dly, - Whether both, or either, and which of them, ought to be - ratified? On these questions I request your opinion and - advice. - - You have, indeed, advised me "_to execute and enjoin an - observance of_" the treaty with the Wyandots, &c. You, - gentlemen, doubtless intended to be clear and explicit; and - yet, without further explanation, I fear I may - misunderstand your meaning: for if by my _executing_ that - treaty you mean that I should make it (in a more particular - and immediate manner than it now is) the act of Government, - then it follows that I am to ratify it. If you mean by my - _executing it_ that I am to see that it be carried into - effect and operation, then I am led to conclude, either - that you consider it as being perfect and obligatory in its - present state, and therefore to be executed and observed; - or that you consider it to derive its completion and - obligation from the silent approbation and ratification - which my proclamation may be construed to imply. Although I - am inclined to think that the latter is your intention, yet - it certainly is best that all doubts respecting it be - removed. - - Permit me to observe, that it will be proper for me to be - informed of your sentiments relative to the treaty with the - Six Nations, previous to the departure of the Governor of - the Western Territory; and therefore I recommend it to - your early consideration. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - _September_ 17, 1789. - - _Ordered_, That the President's message be committed to - Messrs. CARROLL, KING, and READ. - - -FRIDAY, September 18. - -The Senate entered on executive business. - -Mr. CARROLL, on behalf of the committee appointed yesterday, reported as -follows: - -The committee, to whom was referred a message from the President of the -United States of the 17th September, 1789, report: - - That the signature of treaties with the Indian nations has - ever been considered as a full completion thereof, and that - such treaties have never been solemnly ratified by either - of the contracting parties, as hath been commonly practised - among the civilized nations of Europe: wherefore the - committee are of opinion that the formal ratification of - the treaty concluded at Fort Harmar on the 9th day of - January, 1789, between Arthur St. Clair, Governor of the - Western Territory, on the part of the United States, and - the sachems and warriors of the Wyandot, Delaware, Ottawa, - Chippewa, Pattiwattima, and Sac Nations, is not expedient - or necessary; and that the resolve of the Senate of the 8th - September, 1789, respecting the said treaty, authorizes the - President of the United States to enjoin a due observance - thereof. - - -TUESDAY, September 29. - -The following communications from the President were received by Mr. -Jay: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate:_ - - His Most Christian Majesty, by a letter dated the 7th of - June last, addressed to the President and members of the - General Congress of the United States of North America, - announces the much lamented death of his son, the Dauphin. - The generous conduct of the French monarch and nation - towards this country renders every event that may affect - his or their prosperity interesting to us; and I shall take - care to assure him of the sensibility with which the United - States participate in the affliction which a loss so much - to be regretted must have occasioned, both to him and to - them. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - _September_ 29. - - _Gentlemen of the Senate:_ - - Having been yesterday informed by a joint committee of both - Houses of Congress, that they had agreed to a recess, to - commence this day, and to continue until the first Monday - of January next, I take the earliest opportunity of - acquainting you that, considering how long and laborious - this session has been, and the reasons which, I presume, - have produced this resolution, it does not appear to me - expedient to recommend any measures to their consideration - at present, or now to call your attention, gentlemen, to - any of those matters in my department which require your - advice and consent, and yet remain to be despatched. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - _September_ 29, 1789. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the -House of Representatives had finished the business of the session, and -were ready to adjourn, agreeably to the order of the two Houses of -Congress. - -The business of the session being brought to a close, the Vice -President, agreeably to the resolve of the two Houses on the 26th -instant, adjourned the Senate to the first Monday in January next, then -to meet at the City Hall in New York. - - -FIRST CONGRESS - - -LIST OF SENATORS. - -_New Hampshire._--John Langdon, Paine Wingate. - -_Massachusetts._--Caleb Strong, Tristram Dalton. - -_Connecticut._--William S. Johnson, Oliver Ellsworth. - -_New York._--Rufus King, Philip Schuyler. - -_New Jersey._--William Paterson, Jonathan Elmer. - -_Pennsylvania._--William Maclay, Robert Morris. - -_Delaware._--Richard Bassett, George Reed. - -_Maryland._--Charles Carroll, John Henry. - -_Virginia._--Richard Henry Lee, William Grayson. - -_South Carolina._--Ralph Izard, Pierce Butler. - -_Georgia._--William Few, James Gunn. - -_North Carolina._[10]--Benjamin Hawkins, Samuel Johnston. - -_Rhode Island._[11]--Joseph Stanton, jr., Theodore Foster. - - -LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES. - -_New Hampshire._--Nicholas Gilman, Samuel Livermore, Abiel Foster. - -_Massachusetts._--George Thatcher, Fisher Ames, George Leonard, Elbridge -Gerry, Jonathan Grout, Benjamin Goodhue, Theodore Sedgwick, George -Partridge. - -_Connecticut._--Benjamin Huntington, Jonathan Trumbull, Jeremiah -Wadsworth, Roger Sherman, Jonathan Sturges. - -_New York._--John Lawrence, Egbert Benson, William Floyd, Peter -Sylvester, John Hathorn, Jeremiah Van Rensselaer. - -_New Jersey._--Elias Boudinot, James Schureman, Lambert Cadwalader, -Thomas Sinnickson. - -_Pennsylvania._--Henry Wynkoop, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Daniel -Heister, Thomas Scott, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Thomas Hartley, -Peter Muhlenberg. - -_Delaware._--John Vining. - -_Maryland._--William Smith, George Gale, Daniel Carroll, Joshua Seney, -Michael Jenifer Stone, Benjamin Contee. - -_Virginia._--Alexander White, James Madison, jr., John Page, Richard -Bland Lee, Samuel Griffin, Andrew Moore, Josiah Parker, Theodorick -Bland,[12] Isaac Coles, John Brown. - -_South Carolina._--Thomas Tudor Tucker, Edanus Burke, Daniel Huger, -William Smith, Thomas Sumter. - -_Georgia._--Abraham Baldwin, James Jackson, George Mathews. - -_North Carolina._[13]--John Steele, Timothy Bloodworth, Hugh Williamson, -John Baptist Ashe, John Sevier. - -_Rhode Island._[14]--Benjamin Bourn. - - - - -FIRST CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION. - -PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES - -IN - -THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. - - -WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1789. - -This being the day fixed for the meeting of the new Congress, the -following members of the House of Representatives appeared and took -their seats, viz:[15] - -_From Massachusetts_, GEORGE THATCHER, FISHER AMES, GEORGE LEONARD, and -ELBRIDGE GERRY. - -_From Connecticut_, BENJAMIN HUNTINGTON, JONATHAN TRUMBULL, and JEREMIAH -WADSWORTH. - -_From Pennsylvania_, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, THOMAS HARTLEY, -PETER MUHLENBERG, and DANIEL HEISTER. - -_From Virginia_, ALEXANDER WHITE. - -_From South Carolina_, THOMAS TUDOR TUCKER. - -A quorum of the members not being present, the House adjourned until -to-morrow at eleven o'clock. - - -THURSDAY, March 5. - -Several other members attended, viz: from New Hampshire, NICHOLAS -GILMAN; from Massachusetts, BENJAMIN GOODHUE; from Connecticut, ROGER -SHERMAN and JONATHAN STURGES; and from Pennsylvania, HENRY WYNKOOP; and -no other members arriving, a quorum not being present, the House -adjourned, from day to day, until the 14th instant. - - -SATURDAY, March 14. - -The following members took their seats, to wit: JAMES MADISON, junior, -JOHN PAGE, and RICHARD BLAND LEE, from Virginia. - -A quorum not being yet present, the House adjourned, from day to day, -until the 17th instant. - - -TUESDAY, March 17. - -SAMUEL GRIFFIN, from Virginia, took his seat. - - -WEDNESDAY, March 18. - -ANDREW MOORE, from Virginia, took his seat. - -No other member appearing, the House adjourned, from day to day, until -the 23d instant. - - -MONDAY, March 23. - -The following members appeared, to wit:-- - -From New Jersey, ELIAS BOUDINOT; and from Maryland, WILLIAM SMITH. - -No additional member appeared on the 24th. - - -WEDNESDAY, March 25. - -JONATHAN PARKER, from Virginia, appeared and took his seat. - -No additional member arrived until the 30th instant. - - -MONDAY, March 30. - -GEORGE GALE, from Maryland, and THEODORICK BLAND, from Virginia, -appeared and took their seats. - -No additional member on the 31st instant. - - -WEDNESDAY, April 1. - -Two other members appeared, to wit: JAMES SCHUREMAN, from New Jersey, -and THOMAS SCOTT, from Pennsylvania, who, forming a quorum of the whole -body, it was, on motion, - - _Resolved_, That this House will proceed to the choice of a - Speaker by ballot. - -The House accordingly proceeded to ballot for a Speaker, when it was -found that a majority of the votes were in favor of FREDERICK AUGUSTUS -MUHLENBERG, one of the Representatives from Pennsylvania. Whereupon Mr. -MUHLENBERG was conducted to the chair, from whence he made his -acknowledgments to the House for so distinguished an honor. - -The House then proceeded in the same manner to the appointment of a -Clerk, when it was found that Mr. JOHN BECKLEY was elected. - -On motion, - -_Ordered_, That the members do severally deliver in their credentials at -the Clerk's table. - - -THURSDAY, April 2. - -LAMBERT CADWALADER, from New Jersey, appeared and took his seat. - - -FRIDAY, April 3. - -GEORGE CLYMER, from Pennsylvania, appeared and took his seat. - - -SATURDAY, April 4. - -GEORGE PARTRIDGE, from Massachusetts, appeared and took his seat. - -The House proceeded to the election of a doorkeeper, and assistant -doorkeeper; when Gifford Dudley was chosen to the former, and Thomas -Claxton to the latter office. - - -MONDAY, April 6. - -DANIEL CARROLL, from Maryland, appeared and took his seat. - -_Ordered_, That leave be given to bring in a bill to regulate the taking -the oath or affirmation prescribed by the sixth article of the -Constitution; and that Messrs. WHITE, MADISON, TRUMBULL, GILMAN, and -CADWALADER, do prepare and bring in the same. - -On motion, - - _Resolved_, That the form of the oath to be taken by the - members of this House, as required by the third clause of - the sixth article of the Constitution of Government of the - United States, be as followeth, to wit: "I, A B, a - Representative of the United States in the Congress - thereof, do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) - in the presence of Almighty GOD, that I will support the - Constitution of the United States. So help me God." - -A message from the Senate, by Mr. ELLSWORTH. - - Mr. SPEAKER: I am charged by the Senate to inform this - House, that a quorum of the Senate is now formed; that a - President is elected for the sole purpose of opening the - certificates and counting the votes of the electors of the - several States, in the choice of a President and Vice - President of the United States; and that the Senate is now - ready in the Senate Chamber, to proceed, in presence of - this House, to discharge that duty. I have it also in - further charge to inform this House that the Senate has - appointed one of its members to sit at the Clerk's table to - make a list of the votes as they shall be declared, - submitting it to the wisdom of this House to appoint one or - more of its members for the like purpose. - -On motion, - - _Resolved_, That Mr. Speaker, attended by the House, do now - withdraw to the Senate Chamber, for the purpose expressed - in the message from the Senate; and that Mr. PARKER and Mr. - HEISTER be appointed on the part of this House, to sit at - the Clerk's table with the member of the Senate, and make a - list; of the votes, as the same shall be declared. - -Mr. Speaker accordingly left the chair, and attended by the House, -withdrew to the Senate Chamber, and after some time returned to the -House. - -Mr. Speaker resumed the chair. - -Mr. PARKER and Mr. HEISTER then delivered in at the Clerk's table a list -of the votes of the electors of the several States in the choice of a -President and Vice President of the United States, as the same were -declared by the President of the Senate, in the presence of the Senate -and of this House, which was ordered to be entered on the Journal.[16] - - -WEDNESDAY, April 8. - -Two other members, to wit: JNO. LAWRENCE, from New York, and THOMAS -FITZSIMONS, from Pennsylvania, appeared and took their seats. - - -_Duties on Imports._ - -On motion, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on -the state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair. - -Mr. MADISON.--I take the liberty, Mr. Chairman, at this early stage of -the business, to introduce to the committee a subject, which appears to -me to be of the greatest magnitude; a subject, sir, that requires our -first attention, and our united exertions. - -No gentleman here can be unacquainted with the numerous claims upon our -justice; nor with the impotency which prevented the late Congress of the -United States from carrying into effect the dictates of gratitude and -policy. - -The union, by the establishment of a more effective government, having -recovered from the state of imbecility that heretofore prevented a -performance of its duty, ought, in its first act, to revive those -principles of honor and honesty that have too long lain dormant. - -The deficiency in our Treasury has been too notorious to make it -necessary for me to animadvert upon that subject. Let us content -ourselves with endeavoring to remedy the evil. To do this a national -revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while -it secures the object of revenue, it shall not be oppressive to our -constituents. Happy it is for us that such a system is within our power; -for I apprehend that both these objects may be obtained from an impost -on articles imported into the United States. - -In pursuing this measure, I know that two points occur for our -consideration. The first respects the general regulation of commerce; -which, in my opinion, ought to be as free as the policy of nations will -admit. The second relates to revenue alone; and this is the point I mean -more particularly to bring into the view of the committee. - -Not being at present possessed of sufficient materials for fully -elucidating these points, and our situation admitting of no delay, I -shall propose such articles of regulations only as are likely to -occasion the least difficulty. - -The propositions made on this subject by Congress in 1783, having -received, generally, the approbation of the several States of the Union, -in some form or other, seem well calculated to become the basis of the -temporary system, which I wish the committee to adopt.[17] I am well -aware that the changes which have taken place in many of the States, and -in our public circumstances, since that period, will require, in some -degree, a deviation from the scale of duties then affixed: nevertheless, -for the sake of that expedition which is necessary, in order to embrace -the spring importations, I should recommend a _general_ adherence to the -plan. - -This, sir, with the addition of a clause or two on the subject of -tonnage, I will now read, and, with leave, submit it to the committee, -hoping it may meet their approbation, as an expedient rendered eligible -by the urgent occasion there is for the speedy supplies of the federal -treasury, and a speedy rescue of our trade from its present anarchy. - - _Resolved_, As the opinion of this committee, that the - following duties ought to be levied on goods, wares, and - merchandise, imported into the United States, viz: - -On rum, per gallon, ---- of a dollar; on all other spirituous liquors -----; on molasses ----; on Madeira wine ----; on all other wines ----; -on common bohea teas per lb. ----; on all other teas ----; on pepper -----; on brown sugar ----; on loaf sugar ----; on all other sugars ----; -on cocoa and coffee ----; on all other articles ---- per cent. on their -value at the time and place of importation. - -That there ought, moreover, to be levied on all vessels in which goods, -wares, or merchandises shall be imported, the duties following, viz: On -all vessels built within the United States, and belonging wholly to -citizens thereof, at the rate of ---- per ton. - -On all vessels belonging wholly to the subjects of Powers with whom the -United States have formed treaties, or partly to the subjects of such -Powers, and partly to citizens of the said States, at the rate of ----. - -On all vessels belonging wholly or in part to the subjects of other -Powers, at the rate of ----.[18] - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--The necessity of adopting some measure, like the one -proposed by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, is too apparent to -need any argument in its support. The plan which he has submitted to the -committee appears to be simple and sufficiently complete for the present -purpose; I shall, therefore, for my own part, be content with it, and -shall move you, sir, that the blanks be filled up in the manner they -were recommended to be charged by Congress in 1783. My reason for this -is, that those sums have been approved by the Legislatures of every -State represented on this floor, and of consequence must have been -agreeable to the sense of our constituents at that time; and, I believe, -nothing since has intervened to give us reason to believe they have made -an alteration in their sentiments. - -Mr. WHITE.--I wish filling up the blanks may be deferred until the -business is more matured; nor will this be attended with a loss of time, -because the forms necessary to complete a bill will require so much as -to give gentlemen leisure to consider the proper quantum of impost to be -laid, as well on the enumerated articles as on the common mass of -merchandise rated _ad valorem_; for, as was hinted by my colleague, -something may have occurred to render an alteration in the sums -recommended in 1783 in some degree necessary; and if so, time will be -given to consider the subject with more attention in the progress of the -bill, and no unnecessary delay can arise; wherefore, I move you, sir, -that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit -again. - -Mr. MADISON.--I do not consider it at this moment necessary to fill up -the blanks, nor had I it in contemplation at the time I offered the -propositions. I supposed that most of the gentlemen would wish time to -think upon the principles generally, and upon the articles particularly; -while others, who, from their situation and advantages in life, are more -conversant on this subject, may be induced to turn their particular -attention to a subject they are well able to do justice to, and to -assist the committee with their knowledge and information; unless such -gentlemen are now prepared and disposed to proceed in filling up the -blanks, I shall second the motion for the committee's rising. - - -THURSDAY, April 9. - -EGBERT BENSON, from New York, and ISAAC COLES, from Virginia, appeared -and took their seats. - - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--The subject of the proposition laid before the committee -by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) will now, I -presume, Mr. Chairman, recur for our deliberation. I imagine it to be of -considerable importance, not only to the United States, but to every -individual of the Union. The object of the revenue alone would place it -in this situation, and in this light I mean now to consider it. If I am -not mistaken, the honorable mover of the plan viewed it as a temporary -system, particularly calculated to embrace the spring importations; -therefore, in order to discover whether the mode laid before you is well -calculated to answer this end, it will be proper to consider its -operation. The plan consists of certain distinct propositions; one part -is intended to lay a specific sum on enumerated articles, the other a -certain per cent. _ad valorem_: perhaps simplifying the system may be -productive of happy consequences, and it strikes me that confusion and -perplexity will be best avoided by such a measure; hence, it may be -proper to lay a duty at a certain rate per cent. on the value of all -articles, without attempting an enumeration of any; because, if we -attempt to specify every article, it will expose us to a question which -must require more time than can be spared, to obtain the object that -appears to be in the view of the committee. A question, I say, sir, will -arise, whether the enumeration embraces every article that will bear a -duty, and whether the duty to be affixed is the proper sum the article -is able to bear. On this head, sir, I believe that the committee have -not materials sufficient to form even the basis of the system, beside -being wholly incompetent to determine the rate most advantageous to the -article of revenue, and most agreeable to the interest and convenience -of our constituents. Knowledge on these points can only be obtained by -experience; but hitherto we have had none, at least of a general nature. -The partial regulations made by the States, throw but little light on -the subject, and its magnitude ought to induce us to use the greatest -degree of caution. - -A system of the nature which I hinted at, will, in my opinion, be not -only less complex and difficult in its formation, but likewise easier -and more certain in its operation; because the more simple a plan of -revenue is, the easier it becomes understood and executed: and it is, -sir, an earnest wish of mine, that all our acts should partake of this -nature. Moreover, by adopting the plan I have mentioned, you will -embrace the spring importation and give time for digesting and maturing -one upon more perfect principles; and, as the proposed system is -intended to be but a temporary one, _that_ I esteem to be best which -requires the least time to form it. - -With great deference I have submitted these sentiments to the committee, -as what occurred to me to be the better plan of the two; though, I must -own, it is a subject on which I am not so fully informed as I wish to -be, and therefore hope the indulgence of the committee in considering -it. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS.--I observe, Mr. Chairman, by what the gentlemen have -said, who have spoken on the subject before you, that the proposed plan -of revenue is viewed by them as a temporary system, to be continued only -until proper materials are brought forward and arranged in more perfect -form. I confess, sir, that I carry my views on this subject much -further; that I earnestly wish such a one which, in its operation, will -be some way adequate to our present situation, as it respects our -agriculture, our manufactures, and our commerce. - -An honorable gentleman (Mr. LAWRENCE) has expressed an opinion that an -enumeration of articles will operate to confuse the business. So far am -I from seeing it in this point of view, that, on the contrary, I -conceive it will tend to facilitate it. Does not every gentleman -discover that, when a particular article is offered to the consideration -of the committee, he will be better able to give his opinion upon it -than on an aggregate question? because the partial and convenient impost -laid on such article by individual States is more or less known to every -member in the committee. It is also well known that the amount of such -revenue is more accurately calculated and better to be relied on, -because of the certainty of collection, less being left to the officers -employed in bringing it forward to the public treasury. It being my -opinion that an enumeration of articles will tend to clear away -difficulties, I wish as many to be selected as possible; for this reason -I have prepared myself with an additional number, which I wish subjoined -to those already mentioned in the motion on your table; among these are -some calculated to encourage the productions of our country, and protect -our infant manufactures; besides others tending to operate as sumptuary -restrictions upon articles which are often termed those of luxury. The -amendment I mean to offer is in these words: I shall read it in my -place, and, if I am seconded, hand it to you for the consideration of -the committee. - - _Resolved_, As the opinion of this committee, that the - following duties ought to be laid on goods, wares, and - merchandise imported into the United States, to wit: - -[The articles enumerated for duty were beer, ale, and porter; beef, -pork, butter, candles, cheese, soap, cider, boots, steel, cables, -cordage, twine or pack thread, malt, nails, spikes, tacks, or brads; -salt, tobacco, snuff, blank books, writing, printing, and wrapping -paper; pasteboard, cabinet ware; buttons, saddles, gloves, hats, -millinery, castings of iron, slit, or rolled iron; leather, shoes, -slippers, and golo shoes; coach, chariot, and other four wheel -carriages; chaise, solo, or other two wheel carriages; nutmegs, -cinnamon, cloves, raisins, figs, currants, almonds.] - -This motion was seconded by Mr. SCHUREMAN. - -Mr. WHITE.--I shall not pretend to say that there ought not to be -specific duties laid upon every one of the articles enumerated in the -amendment just offered; but I am inclined to think, that entering so -minutely into the detail, will consume too much of our time, and thereby -lose us a greater sum than the additional impost on the last-mentioned -articles will bring in; because there may be doubts whether many of them -are capable of bearing an increased duty; but this, sir, is not the case -with those mentioned in the motion of my colleague: for I believe it -will be readily admitted on all sides, that such articles as rum, wines, -and sugar, have the capacity of bearing an additional duty besides a per -cent. _ad valorem_. His system appears to be simple, and its principles -I conceive, are such as gentlemen are agreed upon, consequently a bill -founded thereupon would pass this House in a few days; the operation of -the law would commence early, and the treasury be furnished with money -to answer the demands upon it. This law would continue until mature -deliberation, ample discussion, and full information, enabled us to -complete a perfect system of revenue: for, in order to charge specified -articles of manufacture, so as to encourage our domestic ones, it will -be necessary to examine the present state of each throughout the Union. -This will certainly be a work of labor and time, and will perhaps -require more of each than the committee have now in their power. Let us, -therefore, act upon the principles which are admitted, and take in the -most material and productive articles, leaving to a period of more -leisure and information a plan to embrace the whole. - -Mr. TUCKER.--In common with the other gentlemen on this floor, I -consider the subject which engages our present deliberations as of very -great importance as it relates to our agriculture, manufactures, and -commerce; I also consider it of consequence that we should give full -satisfaction to our constituents by our decision, be that whatever it -may; and I think this most likely to be effected by establishing a -permanent regulation, although in the interim, a temporary system may be -expedient. - -I have no objection, sir, to go so far into the matter as to pass a law -to collect an impost _ad valorem_, whilst it is understood to be but a -temporary system; and likewise to lay a duty on such enumerated articles -of importation as have been heretofore considered as proper ones by the -Congress of 1783. So far, sir, the matter may be plain to us, and we run -no hazard of doing any thing which may give dissatisfaction to any State -in the Union. The duties proposed by the Congress of 1783 were, I -believe, five per cent. on the value of all goods imported, and an -additional duty on a few enumerated articles.[19] This recommendation of -Congress has been so universally received by the several States, that I -think we run no risk of giving umbrage to any by adopting the plan; but -the other articles which have just been offered, are, I apprehend, to -many of us so novel, and, at the same time, so important, as to make it -hard to determine the propriety of taxing them in a few hours, or even -in a few days. - -In order to preserve the peace and tranquillity of the Union, it will -become necessary that mutual deference and accommodation should take -place on subjects so important as the one I have first touched upon. -And, in order that this may take place, it is proper that gentlemen -deliver their sentiments with freedom and candor. I have done this in a -manner which I conceived it my duty to do, and shall just repeat that I -wish to confine the question to that part of the motion made by the -honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) which respects laying -a general impost on the value of all goods imported, and the small -enumeration which precedes it: if it is in contemplation to do -otherwise, I shall be under the necessity of moving for a division of -the question. If I should lose this, and a high tonnage duty be insisted -on, I shall be obliged to vote against the measure altogether; when, if -the business is conducted on principles of moderation, I shall give my -vote for it to a certain degree. - -Mr. HARTLEY.--If we consult the history of the ancient world, we shall -see that they have thought proper, for a long time past, to give great -encouragement to the establishment of manufactures, by laying such -partial duties on the importation of foreign goods, as to give the home -manufactures a considerable advantage in the price when brought to -market. It is also well known to this committee, that there are many -articles that will bear a higher duty than others, which are to remain -in the common mass, and be taxed with a certain impost _ad valorem_. -From this view of the subject I think it both politic and just that the -fostering hand of the General Government should extend to all those -manufactures which will tend to national utility. I am therefore sorry -that gentlemen seem to fix their mind to so early a period as 1783; for -we very well know our circumstances are much changed since that time: we -had then but few manufactures among us, and the vast quantities of goods -that flowed in upon us from Europe, at the conclusion of the war, -rendered those few almost useless; since then we have been forced by -necessity, and various other causes, to increase our domestic -manufactures to such a degree as to be able to furnish some in -sufficient quantity to answer the consumption of the whole Union, while -others are daily growing into importance. Our stock of materials is, in -many instances, equal to the greatest demand, and our artisans -sufficient to work them up even for exportation. In these cases, I take -it to be the policy of every enlightened nation to give their -manufactures that degree of encouragement necessary to perfect them, -without oppressing the other parts of the community; and under this -encouragement, the industry of the manufacturer will be employed to add -to the wealth of the nation. - -Mr. MADISON.--From what has been suggested by the gentlemen that have -spoken on the subject before us, I am led to apprehend we shall be under -the necessity of travelling further into an investigation of principles -than what I supposed would be necessary, or had in contemplation when I -offered the propositions before you. - -I am sensible that there is great weight in the observation that fell -from the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. TUCKER,) that it -will be necessary, on the one hand, to weigh and regard the sentiments -of the gentlemen from the different parts of the United States; but, on -the other hand, we must limit our consideration on this head, and, -notwithstanding all the deference and respect we pay to those -sentiments, we must consider the general interest of the Union; for this -is as much every gentleman's duty to consider as is the local or State -interest--and any system of impost that this committee may adopt must be -founded on the principles of mutual concession. - -Gentlemen will be pleased to recollect, that those parts of the Union -which contribute more under one system than the other, are also those -parts more thinly planted, and consequently stand most in need of -national protection; therefore they will have less reason to complain of -unequal burthens. - -There is another consideration; the States that are most advanced in -population, and ripe for manufactures, ought to have their particular -interests attended to in some degree. While these States retained the -power of making regulations of trade, they had the power to protect and -cherish such institutions; by adopting the present constitution, they -have thrown the exercise of this power into other hands: they must have -done this with an expectation that those interests would not be -neglected here. - -In my opinion, it would be proper also for gentlemen to consider the -means of encouraging the great staple of America, I mean agriculture; -which I think may justly be styled the staple of the United States, from -the spontaneous productions which nature furnishes, and the manifest -advantage it has over every other object of emolument in this country. -If we compare the cheapness of our land with that of other nations, we -see so decided an advantage in that cheapness, as to have full -confidence of being unrivalled. With respect to the object of -manufactures, other countries may and do rival us; but we may be said to -have a monopoly in agriculture; the possession of the soil, and the -lowness of its price, give us as much a monopoly in this case, as any -nation or other parts of the world have in the monopoly of any article -whatever; but, with this advantage to us, that it cannot be shared nor -injured by rivalship. - -If my general principle is a good one, that commerce ought to be free, -and labor and industry left at large to find its proper object, the only -thing which remains will be to discover the exceptions that do not come -within the rule I have laid down. I agree with the gentleman from -Pennsylvania, that there are exceptions, important in themselves, and -which claim the particular attention of the committee. Although the -freedom of commerce would be advantageous to the world, yet, in some -particulars, one nation might suffer to benefit others, and this ought -to be for the general good of society. - -The next exception that occurs, is one on which great stress is laid by -some well informed men, and this with great plausibility. That each -nation should have within itself the means of defence, independent of -foreign supplies: that in whatever relates to the operations of war, no -State ought to depend upon a precarious supply from any part of the -world. There may be some truth in this remark, and therefore it is -proper for legislative attention. I am, though, well persuaded that the -reasoning on this subject has been carried too far. The difficulties we -experienced a few years ago, of obtaining military supplies, ought not -to furnish too much in favor of an establishment which would be -difficult and expensive; because our national character is now -established and recognized throughout the world, and the laws of war -favor national exertion more than intestine commotion, so that there is -good reason to believe that when it becomes necessary, we may obtain -supplies from abroad as readily as any other nation whatsoever. I have -mentioned this, because I think I see something among the enumerated -articles that seems to favor such a policy. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--I believe that it will not be disputed, that the best and -easiest way of supplying the public wants, is by raising a revenue on -the importation of goods by way of impost, though the manner in which it -should be done, I confess, is a subject on which I stand greatly in need -of information. I should, therefore, most cordially comply with the -request of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. TUCKER,) in order to -obtain time for consideration, and to wait the arrival of the absent -gentlemen, in order that we may have that assistance which is to be -derived from them. Did I consider the question on the present motion -final, I should be at a loss how to act; but this, I take it, is not the -case. I presume it is intended by the mover only to lay his motion on -the table, with the original propositions open for debate and -consideration, till the committee are possessed of sufficient -information to proceed. I also confess, that, in general, I am in favor -of specific duties on enumerated articles. I shall therefore vote for -the amendment; but, in doing this, I shall not consider myself as bound -to support the whole, nor, indeed, any particular article which, upon -due consideration, I may deem either impolitic or unjust; for I cannot -conceive, that, by adopting the amendment, we tie up our hands, or -prevent future discussion. No, sir, that is not the case; and as I trust -we all have the same object in view, namely, the public good of the -United States, so I hope that a willing ear will be lent to every -proposition likely to promote this end; nor do I doubt but gentlemen are -mutually inclined to sacrifice local advantages for the accomplishment -of this great purpose. - -On motion of Mr. LEE, the committee rose and reported progress, and the -House adjourned. - - -SATURDAY, April 11. - -Mr. CLYMER submitted it to the consideration of the committee, how far -it was best to bring propositions forward in this way. Not that he -objected to this mode of encouraging manufactures and obtaining revenue, -by combining the two objects in one bill. He was satisfied that a -political necessity existed for both the one and the other, and it would -not be amiss to do it in this way, but perhaps the business would be -more speedily accomplished by entering upon it systematically. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--It appears to me that this business of raising revenue -points out two questions, of great importance, demanding much -information. The first is, what articles are proper objects of taxation, -and the probable amount of revenue from each. The second is, the proper -mode of collecting the money arising from this fund, when the object and -its amount are ascertained. There are three sources from which we may -gain information on the first question, namely, from the revenue laws of -the different States, for I believe a partial revenue has been raised -almost in every State by an impost. The second source of information, -and a very natural one, is the great body of merchants spread throughout -the United States; this is a very respectable and well-informed body of -our fellow-citizens, and great deference ought to be paid to their -communications--they are in a peculiar situation under the present -constitution, to which they are generally esteemed sincere friends--they -are also more immediately interested in the event of the proposed -measure, than any other class of men. To this Government they look for -protection and support, and for such regulations as are beneficial to -commerce; for these reasons, I think they deserve our confidence, and we -ought to obtain from them such information as will enable the Congress -to proceed to a general permanent system on more solid principles. - -There are gentlemen on this floor well calculated to represent the -mercantile interests of this country, and in whose integrity and -abilities I have the highest confidence; but it is the duty of the -members of this body to see that the principles upon which we act, are -those calculated to promote the general good, and not confined to the -local interests of a few individuals, or even individual States, so that -they will decline trusting alone to this species of information, when -another is attainable. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS thought it best to make the system as perfect as possible -before the committee determined its duration. - -Mr. MADISON, that the subject which was under consideration divided -itself, as had been observed by the honorable gentlemen from Jersey, -into two parts; and hence he concluded that they might very properly be -provided for by two separate bills; and while the Committee of the Whole -are selecting articles and taxing them, another committee can be -employed in devising the mode of collection. This method he thought more -likely to reconcile the opinions of the committee than any he had heard -suggested. - -Mr. SHERMAN gave it as his opinion, that in fixing the duties on -particular articles, if they could not ascertain the exact quantum, it -would be better to run the risk of erring in setting low duties than -high ones, because it was less injurious to commerce to raise them than -to lower them; but nevertheless, he was for laying on duties which some -gentlemen might think high, as he thought it better to derive revenue -from impost than from direct taxation, or any other method in their -power. He moved that the article of rum should be charged with fifteen -cents per gallon--he used the term cents because it was a denomination -of national coin, fixed by the late Congress, ten of which make a _dime_ -and ten _dimes_ one dollar. - -Mr. SMITH was apprehensive fifteen cents would be too high, and -therefore moved ten cents, which he thought would raise more revenue -than the other. - -Mr. MADISON advised and moved for the rising of the committee, in order -to give gentlemen time to make up their minds respecting the quantum of -impost to be laid on each article. - - -MONDAY, April 13. - -WILLIAM FLOYD, from New York; THOMAS SINNICKSON, from New Jersey; JOSHUA -SENEY, from Maryland; EDANUS BURKE, DANIEL HUGER, and WILLIAM SMITH, -from South Carolina, appeared and took their seats. - -On motion, - -_Ordered_, That Mr. BENSON, Mr. PETER MUHLENBERG, and Mr. GRIFFIN, be a -committee to consider of and report to the House respecting the -ceremonial of receiving the President, and that they be authorized to -confer with a committee of the Senate for the purpose. - - -TUESDAY, April 14. - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union; Mr. PAGE in the chair. - -Mr. BLAND, from Virginia, thought the committee not prepared to enter on -the business of impost in the accurate manner which the form of the -propositions seemed to imply. No gentleman on the floor could be more -desirous than he was to go into the measure of a permanent system; but -he could not agree to proceed at this time, for want of information. -When he looked at the list of articles, he saw some calculated to give -encouragement to home manufactures. This might be in some degree proper; -but it was a well-known fact, that the manufacturing arts in America -were only in their infancy, and far from being able to answer the -demands of the country; then certainly you lay a tax upon the whole -community, in order to put the money in the pockets of a few, whenever -you burthen the importation with a heavy impost. - -Mr. SCOTT.--The subject before us naturally divides itself into two -heads. First, what article shall be the subject of a particular tax, and -what shall remain in the common mass liable to an impost _ad valorem_? -The second, what the sum is that is proper for the article we select? -For both these points will be necessary, because it can hardly be -supposed that all articles can be enumerated, while some certainly -ought. This being the case, it leads us to inquire what rule or -principle shall be laid down in order to make a proper discrimination; -for surely some reason should be assigned for this distinction. I -presume the particular article which is to be subjected to an -extraordinary duty must either come at so cheap a rate, according to its -intrinsic value, as to bear a greater impost without being unreasonably -expensive, or it must be one which we do not stand in need of at all, -and only used for the purposes of luxury. If an article does not come -within one of these descriptions, I see no reason why it should be taxed -in an extraordinary manner. - -On motion of Mr. GALE, the word _rum_ was changed into distilled spirits -of Jamaica proof. - -Mr. LAWRENCE proposed to lay twelve cents on this article, saying, I -believe, Mr. Chairman, it will be necessary to consider, when we are -about to lay a duty on any article, how far it is likely to be -collected, especially if our main object is to obtain revenue by our -impost. I trust it does not require much illustration to prove to the -satisfaction of the committee, that if you lay your duties too high, it -will be a temptation to smuggling; for, in the proportion which that sum -bears to the value of the article, will be the risk run in every attempt -to introduce it in a clandestine manner, and, if this temptation is made -too strong, the article will furnish no revenue. I believe, if the -committee shall impose a duty of fifteen cents, as proposed by the -gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. SHERMAN,) it will be so strong a -temptation for smuggling, that we shall lose our revenue altogether, or -be compelled to use a mode of collection probably different from what we -have been accustomed to--a mode so expensive as to absorb the whole -produce of the tax. - -I wish to lay as large a sum on this article as good policy may deem -expedient; it is an article of great consumption, and though it cannot -be reckoned a necessary of life, yet it is in such general use, that it -may be expected to pay a very considerable sum into your treasury, when -others may not with so much certainty be relied upon. But, when we -consider the relative proportion of the first cost of it, and the -fifteen cents duty, we shall find it about one third. This, I cannot -help thinking, is too high, as the risk of a total loss may be ventured -in order to save so great a sum; it is surely a great temptation, and I -dread its consequences on more accounts than one. - -Mr. MADISON.--I would tax this article with as high a duty as can be -collected, and I am sure, if we judge from what we have heard and seen -in the several parts of the Union, that it is the sense of the people of -America that this article should have a duty imposed upon it weighty -indeed. The duty proposed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LAWRENCE) -very little exceeds what is laid in this State, and very little what is -laid in some other States, while some have thought it expedient to -impose an excise superior. The question then is, whether the highest sum -can be collected? I am of opinion that higher duties may generally be -collected under the government of the Union than could be under that of -the particular States, because it has been the policy of some, not only -to decline going hand in hand together, but actually to oppose -regulations made in a neighboring State. Being persuaded, likewise, that -the highest sum will not exceed the power of the law to enforce the -collection of, I shall vote for it. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--I am in favor of taxing this article as high as there is -a probability of collecting the duty. I think our doing so will answer -two or three good purposes. The present object of the committee is to -raise a revenue, and no article on the list before you is more likely to -be productive than this one; but a high duty may also discourage the use -of ardent spirits; if not, it may discourage the West Indies from -turning their molasses into rum. This being the case, they have no other -market for molasses than this country, and our own distilleries, with -the advantages arising therefrom, will be able to rival them in the -manufacture of that article; so far it may tend to the benefit of the -country. I conceive it might be proper, on these accounts, to lay a much -higher duty than has been proposed, were it not for the considerations -mentioned by the gentleman from New York, that we run a risk of losing -all by grasping at too much. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--The sum proposed is higher than the duty collected in -this State, which is about eight cents; I fear, therefore, that it -cannot be collected. If we are to reason and act as moralists on this -point, I am certain it is the wish of every member to prevent the use of -ardent spirits altogether, for their influence on the morals of the -people is of the most pernicious kind. Nor does the mischief terminate -here, as I apprehend it is equally destructive to the health; but we are -not to deliberate and determine on this subject as moralists, but as -politicians, and endeavor to draw (if I may use the expression) from the -vices of mankind, that revenue which our citizens must, in one form or -other, contribute. The question is, what shall be the duty on any -particular article? To accomplish this purpose, we must determine by the -circumstances of that article. Now, if we lay a high duty on Jamaica -rum, it is supposed it will prevent the consumption; but then the -purpose we have in view is frustrated, either because we cannot collect -the tax, or the object of it is no longer imported. The consequence in -this latter case would be, that the morals of our citizens are not -impaired; yet it does not appear to me that this consequence would -certainly flow from a system of high duties. I rather fear it would lead -no further than to set men on schemes to evade the duty; and none of us -are ignorant of the ingenuity and invention which can be exercised, when -interest prompts mankind to an evasion of the law. We know the situation -of the different States; the coast disposed by its prodigious extent to -favor every means of illicit trade. A cargo of rum could be landed in -Jersey, and the whole, reshipped in small vessels, might soon be brought -into this city. If this should be the effect of our law, we have no -other way to correct the operation, but by adopting a mode of collection -odious to all, on account of the numerous train of officers it would -require in its execution. But there would also be a danger of vessels -running into creeks and small inlets, for the purpose of landing their -cargoes, as well as on the sea-shore. Hence a necessity would arise of -employing a number of vessels to check and correct such abuses, and the -probable event would be, that all the impost collected would go to -defray the expense of getting it into the treasury. - -The committee now agreed to tax ardent spirits, of Jamaica proof, -fifteen cents; and all other spirituous liquors twelve cents. - -On filling up the blank on molasses: - -Mr. MADISON.--It is agreed, I presume, that spirits of every kind are -proper objects of taxation, but whether we shall tax spirits in the case -before us, or whether we shall tax the article from which it comes, is a -question worthy of the consideration of the committee for several -reasons. I believe it will be best to lay our hands on the duty, by -charging this article on its importation, to avoid a more disagreeable -measure. I would, therefore, lay such a duty on molasses, as is -proportioned to what we have affixed upon rum, making an allowance in -favor of our own manufacture. I think eight cents per gallon will allow -a sufficient advantage to them, but of this I am not positive, and, -therefore, shall not pertinaciously adhere to that sum, if it be -thought too high; but I presume I am right in the principle upon which I -contend, that we ought to collect the duty on the importation of -molasses, in preference to any other way. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS.--I think the duty on this article depends, in a great -measure, upon what has been already agreed to. If the tax of West India -and country rum is not well proportioned, it may be destructive of the -end we have in contemplation. If, agreeably to the idea of the gentleman -from New York, we affix a low duty, a great deal more rum will, in all -probability, be distilled and used, than heretofore; of course, it will -effectually rival the Jamaica rum, and the Union will lose the revenue -which we calculate upon. Eight cents, I apprehend, is as well -proportioned to the other taxes as can be devised. - -Mr. GOODHUE considered molasses as a raw material, essentially requisite -for the well-being of a very extensive and valuable manufacture. It -ought likewise to be considered (as was truly stated) a necessary of -life. In the Eastern States it entered into the diet of the poorer -classes of people, who were, from the decay of trade and other -adventitious circumstances, totally unable to sustain such a weight as a -tax of eight cents would be upon them. Moreover, the tax was upon -particular States as well as individuals, for it was a fact of public -notoriety, that Massachusetts imported more molasses than all the other -States together. She imports from 30,000 to 40,000 hogsheads annually. -He would make one observation more. It had been the policy of Great -Britain, as he well remembered, to encumber and depress the distillation -of molasses. To do this, at one time they laid a duty of three pence -sterling per gallon. It was conceived to be an oppressive measure, but -it had little other effect than to cause heart-burnings and enmity. It -produced no revenue, and the Parliament were forced to reduce the duty -to a penny. From experience, therefore, as well as from the arguments -before urged, he was inclined to believe that the committee would be -satisfied with fixing a lower sum. He could not consent to allow more -than two cents. - -Mr. THATCHER.--It appears to me, that for the want of a certain and -fixed principle to act upon, there is a great danger of making some -improper establishments. It is for this reason that I wish not to hurry -on the business with so much precipitation. Did gentlemen consider, when -they agreed to a high duty on ardent spirits, that it would be a pretext -for increasing the duties on a necessary of life. I presume a principal -reason why a high tax on spirits was admitted, was in order to -discourage the use of it among ourselves. If this was the intention of -the committee, I have no objection to the burthen; but, even here, I -fear difficulties will arise. Did we judiciously examine whether the -spirit of the law accords with the habits and manners of the people? and -did we assure ourselves of the full execution of the law? If we did -not, the act becomes impolitic, because a law which cannot be executed -tends to make the Government less respectable. - -Mr. AMES.--I have not had the advantage of hearing all the arguments in -support of the eight cents proposed; but those I have heard I am not -satisfied with. The principles on which this tax is founded, I -understand to be this: that it is an article of luxury, and of pretty -general consumption, so that the duty is expected to fall equally upon -all; but that it will not operate in this manner, I think is easily -demonstrable. Can a duty of fifty per cent. _ad valorem_, paid, as it -were, in an exclusive manner, by the State of Massachusetts, be equal? -No, sir. But taking it as a part of the general system, can it be equal -unless a proportionable duty, equal to fifty per cent., is laid upon -articles consumed in other parts of the Union? No, sir; and is it in the -contemplation of gentlemen to lay duties so high as to produce this -equality? I trust it is not; because such duties could never be -collected. Is not, therefore, eight cents disproportioned to the rates -fixed, or intended to be imposed on other articles? I think it is; and, -if to these considerations we add what has been said before, relative to -its being a raw material important to a considerable manufacture, we -cannot hesitate to reject it. - -However gentlemen may think the use of this article dangerous to the -health and morals of our fellow-citizens--I would also beg them to -consider, that it is no more so than every other kind of spirituous -liquors; that it will grow into an article for exportation; and although -I admit we could export it even encumbered with the duty proposed, yet -by it we run the risk of having the manufacture totally ruined, for it -can hardly now stand a competition at home with the West India rum, much -less can it do so abroad. If the manufacturers of country rum are to be -devoted to certain ruin, to mend the morals of others, let them be -admonished that they prepare themselves for the event: but in the way we -are about to take, destruction comes on so sudden, they have not time to -seek refuge in any other employment whatsoever. If their situation will -not operate to restrain the hand of iron policy, consider how -immediately they are connected with the most essential interests of the -Union, and then let me ask if it is wise, if it is reconcilable to -national prudence, to take measures subversive of your very existence? -For I do contend, that the very existence of the Eastern States depends -upon the encouragement of their navigation and fishery, which receive a -deadly wound by an excessive impost on the article before us. - -I would concur in any measure calculated to exterminate the poison -covered under the form of ardent spirits, from our country; but it -should be without violence. I approve as much as any gentleman the -introduction of malt liquors, believing them not so pernicious as the -one in common use; but before we restrain ourselves to the use of them, -we ought to be certain that we have malt and hops, as well as -brew-houses for the manufacture. Now, I deny that we have these in -sufficient abundance to the eastward; but if we had, they are not taxed. -Then why should the poor of Massachusetts be taxed for the beverage they -use of spruce, molasses and water? It surely is unreasonable. I hope -gentlemen will not adopt the motion for eight cents until they are -furnished with some better evidence of its propriety and policy than any -that has yet been given, or as I suspect that can be given. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS was pleased that gentlemen went so fully into a -discussion of a subject which they conceived of great importance, but he -begged them not to lose sight of an observation that had already been -made, that whenever a particular duty was supposed to bear hard on any -one member of the Union, it ought to be regarded as a part only of a -system bearing equally upon all. He was a friend to commerce, it was his -particular profession, and what he had principally devoted his attention -to; and therefore it might justly be imagined he was unwilling to fetter -it with restraints; but as a member of this body, he considered it -proper to forego a pertinacious adhesion to that system, when its -interest came in competition with the general welfare. - -The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Ames) has represented the proposed -regulation as tending eventually to the ruin of the commerce, fisheries, -and manufactures of that State. I do not believe (added he) such a -consequence would result from a duty of eight cents on a gallon of -molasses; if I did, I would be one of the last to advocate the measure; -but to understand this circumstance more fully, let us proceed to an -inquiry of the ground on which we stand. The State of Massachusetts -imports a greater proportion of this article than any other in the -Union; she will have therefore (say the opponents of the measure) to pay -exclusively all the impost upon it. Let us examine this. Some part of -the molasses is consumed in the substance, but all the remainder is -distilled: this must either be consumed in the State, or exported from -it; in the latter case, I would propose that all the rum shipped to -foreign nations should draw back the duties it had paid as molasses. -This would obviate all that was said relative to the competition between -this State and other nations at a foreign market. As to what is -exported, but consumed in some other parts of the United States, it is -but proper that a duty should be paid, and although it may be advanced -in the first instance by the people of Massachusetts, yet it will be -ultimately paid by the consumers in other parts. - -What is consumed within the State itself, gentlemen surely do not mean -to have excluded from a duty. If they consume more country rum than West -India, they pay a less duty than those States which consume a greater -proportion of the latter. As to what is used in its raw, unmanufactured -state, it will be sufficient to observe, that as it is generally a -substitute for sugar, the consumers will therefore avoid the tax on that -article, and pay it on the other. In Pennsylvania they mostly use sugar; -now, if the people there pay a tax on that article, it is but -distributive justice that the people of Massachusetts pay one on the -article they use for the same purpose. - -Mr. GOODHUE.--Fifteen cents, the sum laid on Jamaica spirits, is about -one-third part of its value; now eight cents on molasses is considerably -more: the former is an article of luxury, as was observed when it was -under consideration, therefore that duty might not be improper; but the -latter cannot be said to partake of that quality in the substance, and -when manufactured into rum, it is no more a luxury than Jamaica spirits. -I cannot see, therefore, why molasses ought to be taxed forty or fifty -per cent. when the other pays but thirty-three. Surely the substance -ought not to pay at this rate--then what good reason can be offered for -the measure? - -Mr. BOUDINOT had attended to the arguments of the gentlemen on both -sides of the question, and was led to believe the proportion was not -properly observed. By the resolution of Congress in 1783, the molasses -was fixed upon due consideration at one penny, and West India rum at -fourpence. The proposed proportion was two-thirds of what is charged on -West India rum. He thought this too high, as it would be an encumbrance -on a considerable manufacture; six cents were therefore a more equitable -rate than eight cents were; he believed also, that it was as much as the -article would bear, especially if it was considered that the whole of -the article was not manufactured into rum, but a large proportion -consumed in substance. This might also be near what is intended to be -charged on sugar; by fixing it at this rate, the necessity of lowering -the duty at some future day would be avoided, which he thought an object -worthy of the committee's consideration. - -Mr. BOUDINOT wished the gentleman to consider the difference in the -price; if he did that, he would allow it to be reduced to six cents; if -this principle could now be fixed, it would carry them through the -whole. - -Mr. PARTRIDGE allowed, if all the molasses was distilled into rum, that -a small duty might be proper; but when it was considered as an article -of sustenance to the poor, and as a requisite to the support of the -fisheries and navigation, he hoped the committee would allow but a very -small one indeed. He wished it was possible to discriminate between what -was manufactured into rum, and what was consumed in the raw state, -because a higher duty might be collected in the former case than in the -latter. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS stated, that there were 327,000 gallons of rum imported -into Pennsylvania in 1785, which would tend to show how great a part -was consumed by the citizens of the Union; a demand in one State so -great as this, proved how likely it was for New England rum to rival the -West India. He thought the prices of the two articles gave the country -rum a very considerable advantage, and therefore a duty of seven cents -could not be very injurious to the manufacture. - -The question was put on seven cents and lost. - -And it was agreed to fill the blank with six cents. - -On filling up the blank on Madeira wine, - -Mr. SHERMAN moved fifteen cents. - -Mr. GILMAN moved twenty cents, and - -Mr. HARTLEY moved thirty cents, in order (as he observed) to make it -correspond with the rate per cent. on the value; as the principle of -proportion seemed to be admitted by the committee. - -Mr. SHERMAN said, it appeared to him to be pretty well proportioned; -because those who accustomed themselves to drink wine, consumed two or -three times as much as those who used spirits, and consequently paid a -due proportion. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS.--I shall move you, sir, that the blank be filled with -fifty cents. I observed some gentlemen, in their arguments on the last -article, laid great stress upon the impropriety of taxing the -necessaries of life that were principally consumed by the poorer class -of citizens. I do not think any of the members of this committee -consider the article of Madeira wine a necessary of life, at least to -those whose incomes are only sufficient for a temperate subsistence; -therefore no objection of this kind can be made on the present occasion. -The propriety of a high tax on wines, I apprehend, is self-evident, -whether we consider the price of the article, or the ability of the -people to pay who consume it. The value of a pipe of Madeira wine, I -believe, is about two hundred dollars, a hogshead of rum is worth about -forty dollars. The ability of those who consume the one and the other -are, I suppose, in nearly the same ratio. I do not pretend to know what -are the intentions of gentlemen on this subject, but my wish is, to -raise so considerable a revenue from imposts as to render it unnecessary -to apply to any other mode. If this be the wish of the committee also, -they will be inclined to raise a great part of it from the consumption -of those people who are best able to pay, among whom we may, with great -propriety, reckon the consumers of Madeira wine. - -Mr. P. MUHLENBERG thought his colleague's observations were very -judicious, and said they met exactly his ideas; he therefore seconded -the motion for fifty cents. - -Mr. BLAND.--I am not against laying any sum on this article which there -is a probability of collecting; but I am afraid we are running wild in -the business, and although we appear to be in search of revenue, we are -pursuing a track that will lead us wide of our mark. I am really -suspicious, if we lay a duty of fifty cents upon Madeira wine, we shall -not have a single gallon entered in any port of the United States, and -we shall fully verify to the world the truth of an old maxim, that two -and two, in finance, do not make four. I would therefore suggest to the -committee, the propriety of considering well, whether they can, or -cannot, collect the high duty proposed. If they are well convinced that -it can be done, and will satisfy me only that there is a probability of -its being the case, I shall cheerfully concur in the motion; but at -present, I am of opinion we shall not be able to obtain any revenue -whatsoever if the tax is laid so high. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--I agree entirely with the principle of laying duties -according to their relative value, and hope the committee will keep up -the line of proportion as near as possible. It is only in the -application of this principle on the present occasion, that I differ -with the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, for whose opinions I -have the highest respect. I confess, too, that he is much better able to -ascertain the price of foreign articles than I am; but I believe, with -regard to this one of Madeira wine, I have it in my power to ascertain -it pretty well. I take it, that a pipe of wine usually costs at Madeira -from twenty-five to thirty pounds sterling; but then I would wish the -committee to take into consideration that this wine is paid for there in -our own produce at a very advantageous rate, which reduces the nominal -sterling sum down in value to a like sum of our currency. I therefore -look upon it, that we may calculate the cost of a gallon of Madeira wine -at one dollar; for I cannot conceive that any gentleman entertains an -idea of taxing the risk the merchant runs in importing the wine, or the -increased value it obtains during the time it takes to ripen for sale. -In laying our duties we ought to apportion it to the value of the -article at the time and place of importation, without taking advantage -of such adventitious circumstances. Beside, there is a considerable loss -attends keeping Madeira. The storage is no inconsiderable expense, and -the evaporation is an actual loss in quantity, which the merchant is -obliged to replace by filling up the cask. Under these considerations, I -think it may be admitted, that twenty or twenty-five cents per gallon is -a sufficient tax. Moreover, it may be easily demonstrated, that such a -duty would be more productive than fifty cents; because it would be with -greater certainty collected. There is another reason that induces me to -think twenty cents more proper; fifty cents for a gallon of wine is a -large sum for a merchant to lay down in duties; it must abridge his -mercantile operations, and consequently tend to discourage the Madeira -trade, which, in my humble opinion, is one of the most advantageous -America has left to her, from the selfish policy that actuates some -foreign Powers; therefore we ought not to burthen it to so great a -degree as the proposed duty seems to have in contemplation. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS withdrew his motion for fifty cents, and moved -thirty-three and one-third cents. - -The question was put upon thirty-three and one-third cents as the -highest sum, and agreed to, being twenty-one votes for it, and nineteen -against it. - -The next article "on all other wines," presented itself in order for the -consideration of the committee. - -Mr. HEISTER observed, there were a great variety of wines included in -that general expression, the prices of which were very different; some -worth even more than Madeira, and others less; he submitted, therefore, -to the committee the propriety of discriminating and taxing them -according to their value. - -Mr. BOUDINOT acquiesced in the remark. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS did not think it worth while, at this time, to engage the -committee in making such a discrimination. The rich wines were imported -in no very considerable quantities, and if the duty was laid pretty -high, it would tend to exclude the most inferior and low wines from -being introduced. - -It was thereupon agreed to lay twenty cents on all other wines. - -The next article on the list was "bohea tea," on which - -Mr. FITZSIMONS observed, that he meant this article not only as a -revenue, but as a regulation of a commerce highly advantageous to the -United States. The merchants of this country have, from a variety of -circumstances, and finding their trade restrained and embarrassed, been -under the necessity of exploring channels to which they were heretofore -unaccustomed. At length they have succeeded in discovering one that bids -fair to increase our national importance and prosperity, while at the -same time it is lucrative to the persons engaged in its prosecution. I -mean, sir, the trade to China and the East Indies. I have no doubt but -what it will receive the encouragement of the Federal Government for -some time to come. There is scarcely any direct intercourse of this -nature, but what requires some assistance in the beginning; it is -peculiarly necessary in our case, from the jealousy subsisting in Europe -of this infant branch of commerce. It has been thought proper, under -some of the State governments, to foster and protect a direct -communication with India. I hope the Government of the United States has -an equal disposition to give this trade their encouragement. - -I wish, therefore, the committee would pass over the article for the -present, and permit it to come in at another place in the list, where I -mean to move a discrimination in the duty on teas, according as they are -imported, directly from China in our own ships, or in any ships from -Europe. - -The articles of teas and pepper were passed over for the present. - -Mr. BOUDINOT proposed one cent per pound on sugar. - -Two cents were afterwards proposed, when - -Mr. FITZSIMONS remarked, that one gallon of molasses weighed eight -pounds; that at six cents it did not pay a cent per pound; could it, -therefore, be called anywise equal to such a tax on sugar? Moreover, -sugar is an article of as general consumption as molasses, and when it -is of this inferior quality, it enters as much or more into the -consumption of the poor as the other, while, at the same time, molasses -will sweeten more, according to its weight, than even the best sugar; -from which considerations, I think gentlemen will be satisfied by -putting it on an equality with molasses; therefore I do not oppose the -one cent. - -On the question, the committee agreed to tax it but one cent per pound, -and loaf sugar three cents per pound. All other sugars one and a half -cent per pound. On coffee two and a half cents per pound. - -On motion of Mr. BLAND, the committee rose and reported progress. -Adjourned. - - -WEDNESDAY, April 15. - -A petition of David Ramsay, of the State of South Carolina, was -presented to the House and read, setting forth that Mr. William Smith, a -member returned to serve in this House as one of the representatives for -the State of South Carolina, was, at the time of his election, -ineligible thereto, and came within the disqualification of the third -paragraph of the constitution, which declares, "that no person shall be -a representative who shall not have been seven years a citizen of the -United States," and praying that these allegations may be inquired by -the House. - -Referred to the Committee on Elections. - -Mr. BENSON, from the committee to whom it was referred to consider of -and report to the House respecting the ceremonial of receiving the -President, and to whom was also referred a letter from the Chairman of a -Committee of the Senate to the SPEAKER, communicating an instruction -from that House to a committee thereof, to report if any, and what, -arrangements are necessary for the reception of the President, made the -following report: - - "That Mr. Osgood, the proprietor of the house lately - occupied by the President of Congress, be requested to put - the same, and the furniture therein, in proper condition - for the residence and use of the President of the United - States, to provide for his temporary accommodation. - - "That it will be most eligible, in the first instance, that - a committee of three members from the Senate, and five from - the House of Representatives, to be appointed by the Houses - respectively, to attend to receive the President at such - place as he shall embark from New Jersey for this city, and - conduct him without form to the house lately occupied by - the President of Congress, and that at such time - thereafter, as the President shall signify it will be - convenient for him, he be formally received by both Houses. - - "That a committee of two members from the Senate, and three - members from the House of Representatives, to be appointed - by the Houses respectively, wait on the Vice President of - the United States, as soon as he shall come to this city, - and, in the name of the Congress of the United States, - congratulate him on his arrival." - -And a committee of five was balloted for and chosen accordingly, for the -purpose of waiting on the President. - -Another committee of three was appointed to wait on the Vice President. - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair; the question being on -inserting, in the list of dutiable articles, beer, ale, and porter-- - -Mr. FITZSIMONS meant to make an alteration in this article, by -distinguishing beer, ale, and porter, imported in casks, from what was -imported in bottles. He thought this manufacture one highly deserving of -encouragement. If the morals of the people were to be improved by what -entered into their diet, it would be prudent in the national Legislature -to encourage the manufacture of malt liquors. The small protecting -duties laid in Pennsylvania had a great effect towards the establishment -of breweries; they no longer imported this article, but, on the -contrary, exported considerable quantities, and, in two or three years, -with the fostering aid of Government, would be able to furnish enough -for the whole consumption of the United States. He moved nine cents per -gallon. - -Mr. LAWRENCE seconded the motion. He would have this duty so high as to -give a decided preference to American beer; it would tend also to -encourage agriculture, because the malt and hops consumed in the -manufacture were the produce of our own grounds. - -Mr. SMITH (of Maryland) was opposed to such high duties as seemed to be -in the contemplation of some members of the committee. He thought enough -might be raised if the tax was lowered. He formed this opinion from some -calculations he had made with respect to the imports at Baltimore. He -stated them to amount for the last year, at the rate now proposed, to -£258,163; to this, if he added five other districts in Maryland, the -probable amount of which, on the same principle, would be £185,537; -then, these two sums multiplied by twelve, the supposed proportion that -Maryland ought to bear of the national debt, would produce £5,324,400, a -sum exceeding very considerably what the wants of the Union required. - -Mr. GALE thought a duty of nine cents would operate as a prohibition -upon the importation of beer and porter. He remarked the advantages -which America possessed in growing malt and hops for the manufacture of -these articles. In addition to this, the risk and expense of bringing it -from Europe was to be considered. Upon the whole, he concluded so high a -duty as nine cents would give the brewers here a monopoly, defeat the -purpose of obtaining revenue, enhance the price to the consumer, and -thereby establish the use of spirituous liquors. For these -considerations he was against that sum. - -Mr. SINNICKSON declared himself a friend to this manufacture, and -thought if the duty was laid high enough to effect a prohibition, the -manufacture would increase, and, of consequence, the price be lessened. -He considered it of importance, inasmuch as the materials were produced -in the country, and tended to advance the agricultural interest. - -Mr. MADISON moved to lay an impost of eight cents on all beer imported. -He did not think this sum would give a monopoly, but hoped it would be -such an encouragement as to induce the manufacture to take deep root in -every State in the Union; in this case, it would produce the collateral -good hinted at by the gentleman from New Jersey, which, in his opinion, -was an object well worthy of being attended to. He observed, that, in -the State of New York, the article paid a duty equal to six cents on -importation, and if brought in foreign vessels, it amounted to eight -cents; and yet quantities of it were still imported, which proved that -eight cents would not amount to a prohibition. - -The committee agreed hereupon to charge it at eight cents. - -On all beer, ale, or porter, imported in bottles, per dozen, twenty-five -cents. Agreed to without debate. - -On every barrel of beef it was moved to lay a duty of a dollar per -barrel. - -Mr. BLAND thought that very little revenue was likely to be collected on -this article, let the duty be more or less; and as it was to be had in -sufficient quantities within the United States, perhaps a tax amounting -to a prohibition would be proper. - -Mr. THATCHER admitted that there was beef enough to be got in every part -of the country, but it was fresh beef. Some States, from local -circumstances, were unable to salt and preserve it, therefore a tax on -this article would operate as a partial tax upon those States. If there -is a sufficient quantity in the other States to answer their own -consumption, they will feel no part of the burthen; but it appeared -unnecessary to him to lay this restriction, because he found some States -capable of exporting beef on terms as reasonably low as any other -country could, and it could not, therefore, be contended for as a -requisite encouragement to this branch of the agricultural interest. - -Mr. GOODHUE did not contend that it was necessary to lay a particular -duty on beef, although it was among the enumerated articles admitted by -the committee. He was satisfied of the fact, that meat could be put up -here cheaper than in Europe, and afforded at a less price, so there was -little to apprehend from rivalship. - -Mr. MADISON thought that almost every State in the Union had more of -this article than was necessary for its own consumption, and -consequently there was no danger of its being imported, unless the -quality of the foreign beef was superior. He would not object to -gentlemen gratifying themselves with this meat, especially as the -consumption was neither so great nor general as to affect the revenue, -and therefore he judged it might be struck out. - -Mr. TUCKER thought with the gentleman from Virginia, that the regulation -was unnecessary, and that it would be better to throw it into the common -mass, taxable at a certain rate per cent. He therefore moved to have it -struck out. - -Upon these considerations the articles of beef, pork, and butter, were -all struck out. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS moved to lay a duty of two cents on all candles of tallow -per pound. - -Mr. TUCKER observed, that some States were under the necessity of -importing considerable quantities of this article also, while others had -enough, and more than enough, for their own consumption, therefore the -burthen would be partially borne by such States. As the committee had -just rejected some articles upon this principle, he would move that this -be struck out likewise. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS.--I am not for striking out, sir. Every article imported -into the State that gentleman represents, from which revenue is to be -raised, he moves to have struck out; but I wish the committee to -consider a moment before they join in sentiments with him. The -manufacture of candles is an important manufacture, and far advanced -towards perfection. I have no doubt but, in a few years, we shall be -able to furnish sufficient to supply the consumption of every part of -the continent. In Pennsylvania we have a duty of two pence per pound, -and under the operation of this small encouragement the manufacture has -gained considerable strength. We no longer import candles from Ireland -or England, of whom a few years ago we took considerable quantities; the -necessity of continuing those encouragements which the State -Legislatures have deemed proper, exists in a considerable degree; -therefore it will be politic in the Government of the United States to -continue such duties till their object is accomplished. - -Mr. TUCKER would be glad to know what article it was that South Carolina -would not contribute her full proportion of tax upon--he saw none; on -the contrary, so far as the enumeration went, the impost would bear -unequally upon her, and he feared many others in the list would increase -the imposition. He thought it the duty of the committee to guard against -an unequal distribution of the public burthen in every case, and -therefore wished the duty on this article to be a moderate one; not -because it affected the State he represented, for it did not do this to -any degree, as wax candies were there principally consumed, the material -for which was the production of the Southern States, but because other -States, not having this advantage, might be oppressed. - -Mr. BOUDINOT apprehended most States imported considerable quantities of -this article from Russia and Ireland; he expected they would be made -cheaper than they could be imported, if a small encouragement was held -out by the Government, as the materials were to be had in abundance in -our country. - -Mr. LAWRENCE thought that if candles were an object of considerable -importation, they ought to be taxed for the sake of obtaining revenue, -and if they were not imported in considerable quantities, the burthen -upon the consumer would be small, while it tended to cherish a valuable -manufacture. He seconded Mr. FITZSIMON's motion for two cents: which was -carried in the affirmative upon the question being put. - - On all candles of wax or spermaceti, per lb. six cents; - cheese, four cents; soap, two cents; boots, per pair, fifty - cents; on all shoes, slippers, or goloshes made of leather, - ten cents; on all shoes or slippers, made of silk or stuff, - ten cents; on all steel unwrought, per 112 lbs.,---- - -Mr. LEE moved to strike out this last article, observing that the -consumption of steel was very great, and essentially necessary to -agricultural improvements. He did not believe any gentleman would -contend, that enough of this article to answer consumption could be -fabricated in any part of the Union: hence it would operate as an -oppressive, though indirect tax upon agriculture, and any tax, whether -direct or indirect, upon this interest, at this juncture, would be -unwise and impolitic. - -Mr. TUCKER joined the gentleman in his opinion, observing that it was -impossible for some States to get it but by importation from foreign -countries. He conceived it more deserving a bounty to increase the -quantity, than an impost which would lessen the consumption and make it -dearer also. - -Mr. CLYMER replied, that the manufacture of steel in America was rather -in its infancy; but as all the materials necessary to make it were the -produce of almost every State in the Union, and as the manufacture was -already established, and attended with considerable success, he deemed -it prudent to emancipate our country from the manacles in which she was -held by foreign manufactures. A furnace in Philadelphia, with a very -small aid from the Legislature of Pennsylvania, made three hundred tons -in two years, and now makes at the rate of two hundred and thirty tons -annually, and with a little further encouragement would supply enough -for the consumption of the Union. He hoped, therefore, gentlemen would -be disposed, under these considerations, to extend a degree of patronage -to a manufacture, which a moment's reflection would convince them was -highly deserving protection. - -Mr. MADISON thought the object of selecting this article to be solely -the encouragement of the manufacture, and not revenue, for on any other -consideration it would be more proper, as observed by the gentleman from -Carolina, (Mr. TUCKER) to give a bounty on the importation. It was so -materially connected with the improvement of agriculture and other -manufactures, that he questioned its propriety even on that score. A -duty would tend to depress many mechanic arts in the proportion that it -protected this; he thought it best to reserve this article to the -non-enumerated ones, where it would be subject to a five per cent. _ad. -valorem_. - -Mr. TUCKER considered the smallest tax on this article to be a burthen -on agriculture, which ought to be considered an interest most deserving -protection and encouragement; on this is our principal reliance, on it -also our safety and happiness depend. When he considered the state of it -in that part of the country which he represented on this floor, and in -some other parts of the Union, he was really at a loss to imagine with -what propriety any gentleman could propose a measure big with -oppression, and tending to burthen particular States. The situation of -South Carolina was melancholy; while the inhabitants were deeply in -debt, the produce of the State was daily falling in price. Rice and -indigo were become so low, as to be considered by many not objects -worthy of cultivation; and gentlemen will consider, that it is not an -easy thing for a planter to change his whole system of husbandry in a -moment; but accumulated burthens will drive to this, and add to their -embarrassments. He thought an impost of five per cent. as great an -encouragement as ought to be granted, and would not oppose that being -laid. He called upon gentlemen to exercise liberality and moderation in -what they proposed, if they wished to give satisfaction and do justice -to their constituents. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS thought, if gentlemen did not get rid of local -considerations, the committee would make little progress. Every State -will feel itself oppressed by a duty on particular articles, but when -the whole system is perfected, the burthen will be equal on all. He did -not desire, for his part, to obtain exclusive advantages for -Pennsylvania; he would contend, and undertake to prove, that by the -duties already agreed to, that State sacrificed as much as any other. -Indeed, if he had said more, he believed himself capable of proving the -position. Being of this opinion he hoped the committee would agree to -grant her an advantage which would revert back upon the other parts of -the Union, without operating even for the present, to the material -disadvantage of any. Some States were, from local circumstances, better -situated to carry on the manufacture than others, and would derive some -little advantage on this account in the commencement of the business. -The Eastern States were so situated, perhaps some of the Middle ones -also; but will it therefore be insisted upon, that the Southern States -pay more of the impost on foreign goods than these? For his part, he -never could conceive, that the consumption of those articles by the -negroes of South Carolina would contribute to the revenue as much as -that of the white inhabitants of the Eastern States. But laying aside -local distinctions, what operates to the benefit of one part in -establishing useful institutions, will eventually operate to the -advantage of the whole. With these considerations, he cheerfully -submitted the article to the discretion of the committee, moving to fill -the blank with sixty-six cents. - -Mr. BLAND considered a tax of sixty-six cents a very heavy duty on -agriculture and the mechanic arts, and was averse to granting it. - -Mr. BOUDINOT moved fifty-six cents, which motion was agreed to. - - On nails and spikes, it was agreed to lay one cent per - pound; on tarred cordage, fifty cents per 112 pounds; on - untarred cordage, sixty cents per 112 pounds; on twine or - pack-thread, one hundred cents per 112 pounds. - -Mr. MADISON said, that he was not clear as to the policy of taxing -cordage. He thought ship-building an object worthy of legislative -attention, and questioned the propriety of raising the price of any -article that entered so materially into the structure of vessels. But if -it was politic to lay an impost on cordage, would it not be the same -with regard to hemp? He thought it would, and therefore moved it. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--Hemp is a raw material, necessary for an important -manufacture, and therefore ought not to be subject to a heavy duty. If -it was the product of the country in general, a duty might be proper, -but this he believed was not the case. - -Mr. MADISON.--I said before, I very much doubted the propriety of laying -a duty on such articles as entered into ship-building; but if it is -necessary to lay a duty on cordage for the purpose of encouraging the -manufacture, and making us independent of the world as to that article, -it is also politic to endeavor to make us alike independent for the raw -material; a great proportion of the land in the Western country is -peculiarly adapted to the growth of hemp, and it might be there -cultivated to advantage, if the labors of the husbandman were protected -by the Government. - -Mr. BOUDINOT thought the soil of this country ill adapted to the -cultivation of hemp; even the strong low lands which are fit for it, -soon became exhausted; it impoverished the lands wherever it grew, and -destroyed the agricultural stamina. If he was not mistaken in this -opinion, he thought the committee would, with him, disagree to the -motion. - -Mr. PARTRIDGE thought a duty on hemp would tend to discourage the -American navigation, her trade, and fisheries, without any good -resulting to warrant such an injury. It was not ascertained whether hemp -could be furnished in any tolerable quantities to answer the demand, and -if upon experience, it should be found that the quantity was -insufficient, what a stab this would prove to all concerned in -ship-building. - -Mr. AMES expressed a doubt of the policy of taxing either cordage or -hemp, because while it tended to encourage the agriculture or -manufacture, it discouraged the maritime interest, and therefore the -discouragement, in the event, would reflect back upon those interests it -was intended to cherish. - -Mr. MOORE declared the Southern States well calculated for the -cultivation of hemp, and, from certain circumstances, well inclined -thereto. He conceived it the duty of the committee to pay as much -respect to the encouragement and protection of husbandry (the most -important of all interests in the United States) as they did to -manufactures. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS thought there was a clear distinction between taxing -manufactures and raw materials, well known to every enlightened country. -He had no doubt but hemp enough could be raised for the home -consumption, nay for exportation also, and why it was not done he could -not say. He recollected that before the revolution, very little was -imported; now, considerable quantities are brought from England. When -such a bulky article is capable of paying double freight, first from -Russia and then from England, besides its first cost, he conceived that -what was produced in America had a very considerable advantage. It could -not be urged that the people are unacquainted with the cultivation, -because it had been carried to very great perfection in former years. If -eight dollars a hundred is not a sufficient inducement to farmers to -raise hemp, it is a proof that they direct their labors to more -profitable productions, and why should legislative authority be -exercised to divide their attention? Or for this purpose, why should -navigation and ship-building be necessarily burthened. He concluded with -declaring, that no duty which the Congress would agree to lay, could -give encouragement to the cultivation of hemp, if the present price of -that article was insufficient. - -Mr. SCOTT stated a fact or two, being perhaps as well acquainted with -the Western country as any member of the committee. The lands along the -frontiers, he could assure the committee, were well calculated for the -cultivation of this plant; it is a production that will bear carriage by -land better than any other, tobacco not excepted. He believed an -encouragement of the kind now moved for would bring, in a year or two, -vast quantities from that country, at little expense, to Philadelphia, -even from the waters of the Ohio; the inhabitants expect some -encourgement, and will be grateful for it. Although a gentleman has -called it a bulky article, yet as much can be packed upon a horse as a -horse can carry, or in a wagon as four horses can draw; so that its bulk -will not prevent our countrymen from seeking a market on the waters of -the Atlantic. - -The committee rose and reported, and - -The House adjourned. - - -THURSDAY, April 16. - -The House proceeded, by ballot, to the appointment of a committee of -five, to attend, with a committee from the Senate, to receive the -President of the United States at such place as he shall embark at from -New Jersey for this city. - -The members elected were Messrs. BOUDINOT, BLAND, TUCKER, BENSON, and -LAWRENCE. - -On motion, - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. GILMAN, AMES, and GALE, be a committee, in -conjunction with a committee from the Senate, to wait upon the Vice -President of the United States upon his arrival in this city, and to -congratulate him thereupon in the name of the Congress of the United -States. - - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -State of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair. - -Mr. MOORE thought it good policy to encourage the manufacture of -cordage, but was not convinced that it was bad policy to encourage -likewise the growth of the raw material in America, so that we might -become as independent of all the world for this article, as we are -already for every other used in the structure of vessels. He believed it -would be difficult to persuade the farmer that his interest ought to be -neglected to encourage particular artisans: he therefore begged the -committee to do as much for them as was in their power, believing that -the event of such policy would mutually benefit the manufacturer and -agriculturist. - -Mr. HEISTER remarked, that a heavy duty on hemp would not encourage the -raising of it this year, because the time was elapsed for commencing the -cultivation; but a duty to take place at some future time, would no -doubt be beneficial. He assured the committee of the ability of the land -in America to grow hemp equal to any part of the world; and, therefore, -joined heartily in giving it legislative encouragement, in order to -induce the people to turn their attention more particularly to the -subject, but would recommend the duty to be laid so as to commence its -operation at a distant day. - -Mr. WHITE remarked, what was good policy in England might be the -contrary in America. England was a maritime nation, and therefore she -gave a bounty on such articles as were requisite to support her maritime -importance--America was an agricultural country, and therefore ought to -attend to the encouragement of that interest. If the Legislature take no -notice of this article, the people will be led to believe it is not an -object worthy of encouragement, and the spirit of cultivation will be -damped; whereas, if a small duty only was laid, it might point out to -them that it was desirable, and would induce an increase of the -quantity. Our lands are capable of bearing this plant many years without -being exhausted. He could not say exactly what sum would be proper to -fill the blank with, but mentioned seventy-five cents for the -consideration of the committee. - -Mr. PARTRIDGE admitted the propriety of encouraging agriculture, but it -ought not to be done at the expense of the ship-builders, especially as -the good would not balance the evil. He told the committee that hemp had -risen, within three or four years, forty per cent. in Russia, owing, -perhaps, to the increased demand which the present northern war -occasioned. This naturally operated to encourage the cultivation in -America, and perhaps was sufficient, without the aid now intended to be -given. If gentlemen were desirous of having it stand among the selected -articles, he should not object, but hoped the duty would not exceed five -per cent. Forty cents were about equal to that rate, and he moved to -fill the blank with that sum. - -Mr. WHITE thought with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that the United -States would furnish this article in sufficient abundance, not only for -home consumption, but for exportation. The maritime powers of Europe do -not raise the article, but obtain it principally from Russia--these -powers are as well disposed to take it from us as from Russia. Our back -lands are extremely well adapted to its cultivation; a road to bring it -to market is opening; the Potomac extends her now navigable waters into -the interior country, and a communication will be established with the -river Ohio and the western waters. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. -HARTLEY) had hinted at the propriety of settling the western territory; -it was his opinion that every encouragement ought to be given them to -engage their affection; that the administration of the Government ought -to be such as to give satisfaction to all parts of the Union, but it is -peculiarly our interest to render that country advantageous; her fertile -lands, and streams easy of descent, would pour into the Atlantic States, -through the channels he had mentioned, a profusion of wealth, and hemp -in abundance. The Shenandoah river disembogues into the Potomac, the -South Branch communicates with it also, and a number of other rivers -whose lands will produce immense quantities. He considered that this, in -a short time, would do more towards encouraging ship-building than a -bounty, as had been mentioned by some gentlemen. - -Mr. BURKE thought it proper to suggest to the committee what might be -the probable effect of the proposed measure in the State he represented, -(South Carolina,) and the adjoining one (Georgia.) The staple products -of that part of the Union were hardly worth cultivation, on account of -their fall in price; the planters are, therefore, disposed to pursue -some other. The lands are certainly well adapted to the growth of hemp, -and he had no doubt but its culture would be practised with attention. -Cotton is likewise in contemplation among them, and if good seed could -be procured, he hoped it might succeed. But the low, strong, rice lands, -would produce hemp in abundance--many thousand tons even this year, if -it was not so late in the season. He liked the idea of laying a low -duty now, and encouraging it against the time when a supply might be had -from our own cultivation. - -Mr. MADISON feared seventy-five cents was too high; he was doubtful -whether it would not have been as well to have left out cordage; for if -a duty on hemp was impolitic because it burthened navigation, so also -was that on cordage. He by no means approved of measures injurious to -ship-building, which he considered in a threefold view: first, as it -related to vessels employed in the coasting trade; second, as it -respected those employed in those channels of trade, the stream of which -depends upon the policy of foreign nations; and third, as it was -connected with vessels built for sale. With respect to the first, no -doubt but we can prevent any discouragement from the operation of the -duty, because we can make such discrimination as will prevent a -rivalship; but, in relation to the two other points, and particularly -the last, he was sensible that every penny laid upon cordage would enter -into the price of the vessel, and, by raising the price, drive the -purchasers to seek a better bargain at other hands. Fearful therefore of -injuring this interest, he should vote for a small duty at present, in -hopes of being able to see, in a little time, sufficient quantities of -hemp brought to market, as predicted, at even a less price than is given -now for the imported. - -Mr. SMITH agreed to forty cents, provided the committee would make it -one dollar at the end of two years. - -Mr. MADISON could not judge of the alteration in the circumstances of -this country two years hence, and therefore did not like the kind of -provision mentioned. He preferred making it a positive sum, and moved -fifty cents; which was agreed to. - -On malt. - -Mr. SHERMAN thought this might be struck out, on the same principle that -beef and pork had been, there was none imported. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS replied, that there had been considerable and recent -importations of this article into the United States--30,000 bushels in -one year; certainly this interferes with the products of the country. He -moved ten cents per bushel, and it was agreed to. - -On motion of Mr. AMES, barley was taxed six cents, and lime one hundred -cents. He just stated that these articles were imported in considerable -quantities from a neighboring State that had not yet adopted the -constitution; and, perhaps, said he, our political situation is such as -to make some regulation on this head necessary. - -On nails, spikes, tacks, and brads. - -Mr. LEE did not think we were ripe for such extensive manufactures as -some gentlemen seemed desirous of encouraging; but this was particularly -objectionable, because it was a tax upon the improvement of estates, -unless the articles could be furnished as cheap and abundantly at home -as they were by foreign nations. He moved to strike it out. - -Mr. MADISON conceived this, like a tax on hemp, would increase the price -on ship-building; spikes and nails were necessary for the construction -of vessels. - -Mr. BLAND thought a duty on nails an unequal tax, burthening the -Southern States, but not felt by the Northern, who made only enough for -their own consumption; he opposed it also on account of its being an -article of indispensable necessity. - -Mr. GOODHUE informed the gentlemen who were opposed to a duty on nails, -that great quantities of them were manufactured for exportation in -Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and he believed some other States; and, -in a little time, enough might be made to supply all North America. - -Mr. TUCKER judged, from what was said of the little expense and great -facility of manufacturing nails, that it stood in no need of legislative -assistance. Why lay a duty on foreign nails, when they cannot rival you -if you make them as good and as cheap? Will not the five per cent. duty, -with freight and shipping charges, be sufficient encouragement? He -thought it would, and therefore was averse to any other duty. He -observed also, that it would burthen ship-building, and was, -consequently against those employed in that business. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS was not very solicitous about the duty. He thought the -manufacturer would have but little to apprehend if the Legislature -should decide against them; for, the fact was, that nails were at this -moment made cheaper and, in the opinion of some judges, better than -those coming from England. Before the revolution, the people in America -were not permitted to erect slitting mills. They now have several, and -are independent of all the world for the materials necessary for -carrying on the business in the most extensive manner. So far as the -duty respected the manufacture in Pennsylvania, it was his opinion that -refusing it would do no material injury, and he believed it would draw -but little money into the treasury; yet, nevertheless, he was willing to -allow a small one, because it conformed to the policy of the States, who -thought it proper, in this manner, to protect their manufactures. He -believed neither spikes nor nails for ship-building were imported; they -were generally large and heavy, and were made in the country, according -to the builder's orders. - -On the motion, nails and spikes were taxed one cent per pound, but tacks -and brads were struck out. - -On salt, per bushel. - -Mr. BURKE.--I need not observe to the committee that this article is a -necessary of life, nor that black cattle, sheep, and horses do not -thrive without it; on these considerations alone I should oppose it; but -I know likewise that it is a tax particularly odious to the inhabitants -of South Carolina and Georgia, to whom the price is already -oppressively great. The back parts of that State are obliged to haul all -they consume, two, three, or four hundred miles in wagons, for which -they pay about seven shillings sterling. Add this to the first cost, -which is about one shilling, though sometimes more, and you will find -the burthen sustained by those who live remote from the sea-shore -sufficiently unequal. I hope, therefore, the committee will not agree to -it. - -Mr. LAWRENCE hoped a duty would be laid on the article; it was in -general use, and the consumption so regular, that it was much to be -depended upon as a source of revenue; but the duty ought not to be so -high as to make it oppressive. He moved to impose a duty of six cents -per bushel. - -Mr. TUCKER felt an aversion to laying a duty on salt for several -motives. It would bear harder upon the poor than upon the rich. The true -principle of taxation is, that every man contribute to the public -burthens in proportion to the value of his property. But a poor man -consumes as much salt as a rich man. In this point of view, it operates -as a poll-tax, the most odious of all taxes; it does not operate simply -as a poll-tax, but is heavier on the poor than on the rich, because the -poor consume greater quantities of salted provisions than the rich. Nor -does it bear equally upon every part of the country; for it is consumed -in a greater proportion by cattle at a distance, than by those near the -sea shores. Moreover, the duty collected on the importation will enter -into the price of the article, and the countryman will pay the retailer -a profit on the tax, perhaps of four times its amount. For which -reasons, he was more averse to this article being taxed than any other -whatsoever. - -Mr. SCOTT declared himself decisively against the duty, although he -admitted a most certain revenue could be drawn from it, on account of -its universal demand and utility. But he did not think these -considerations alone amounted to a sufficient reason why this necessary -article should be taxed; if they did, the argument would prove too much, -it would extend to the use of water and common air. He presumed the old -arguments often urged by gentlemen in favor of manufactures did not -apply, because no encouragement would be sufficient to establish it. - -From the nearest part of the Atlantic coast, where salt can be obtained, -to the next nearest in the Western territory, is a distance of eight -hundred or one thousand miles; all the intermediate space must be -supplied from one or the other; over the mountains it must be carried on -pack-horses. This of itself is a sufficient tax upon the consumer; how -oppressive then must it be to increase the burthen. - -Mr. MOORE observed upon the inequality, as it respected the consumption -of the article by cattle: some States raised more than others, -consequently they consumed more; some parts of the same State were in a -like situation. The people on the sea-coast pursued merchandise; those -in the back parts raised cattle, which he was bold to say consumed five -times as much salt as the lower country, and would pay the tax in the -same proportion. It has been said, that if they pay more on salt, they -pay less on other articles--agreed to. But there are a number more which -may perhaps unequally affect them; yet it is an argument of small weight -to say, because we in large commercial cities are regulated in a -sumptuary manner for indulging in luxuries, you who are obliged to -retrench them shall pay a tax upon the necessaries of life. In short, -the tax appeared to him not only unpopular, but unjust likewise, and he -would not agree to it. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina.)--If any further arguments were necessary -to convince the committee of the impropriety of the present measure, -more might be urged, though what has been said is certainly sufficient -to demonstrate that it will be attended with a great deal of -dissatisfaction, and in proportion to that dissatisfaction will be the -danger of having your laws contemned, opposed, or neglected in the -execution. It is well known, that however small the duty, it will -furnish a pretext to the seller to extort a much greater sum from the -consumer. Another observation. It is believed that the inhabitants of -the interior part of South Carolina are opposed to the new Government; -it will be a melancholy circumstance to entangle ourselves, at this -time, among the shoals of discontent; yet no stronger impulse could be -given for opposition than the proposed tax; conceiving it in this light, -he was against the measure. - -Mr. SCOTT added, that the price of salt where he lived was four dollars -a bushel, the country was settled three or four hundred miles beyond -him, and he supposed the price there to be greater. - -Mr. LAWRENCE thought it would be better for the committee to take time -to examine what had been urged against the tax, and as it was the usual -time for adjourning, the committee might rise and defer their decision -till to-morrow. - -Whereupon the committee rose, and the House adjourned. - - -FRIDAY, April 17. - -BENJAMIN CONTEE, from Maryland, appeared and took his seat. - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair; the question of laying a duty -on salt recurred. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--I had the honor yesterday of delivering my sentiments in -favor of this duty; but observations were made by gentlemen from -different parts of the House against the measure. The principal -objection was, that the tax was an odious one. It was admitted by a -worthy gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT) that all taxes are -odious; this is certainly true, for the people are not pleased with -paying them; nothing but necessity will induce a Government to have -recourse to them. It is also true, that some are more odious than -others. From what has been said, it may be seen that a tax on salt is -not so in general, but only in particular parts of the Union; the remote -inhabitants, it is said, will be dissatisfied, because it increases the -price of the commodity, and they use more of it than others. It is -mentioned as partaking of the nature of a capitation tax, but this kind -of tax is odious, more from its manner of operation than its nature. We -find in some States where it is in use, the people live easy under it; -for example, it is not complained of in some of the Eastern States. We -have not much to apprehend from a tax on salt in this State; the people -are satisfied with it; at least the complaints are neither so loud nor -so general, as to make us apprehensive for the existence of the -Government we live under. Its operations, though the contrary was -predicted, go on with as much ease since an impost has been laid, as -they did before. I believe, likewise, we have only to try the -experiment, to be convinced it would have a similar effect throughout -the continent; for I cannot persuade myself that it is generally looked -upon in so odious a light as some gentlemen imagine. It was also said, -that the tax would be unequal, and the objects of inequality were two. -The poor man would pay as much as the rich; but this is not the case; -the rich are generally more profuse in their consumption than the poor; -they have more servants and dependents also to consume it; consequently -the whole amount of their consumption must be in a proportionable ratio. -The other inequality was its different operation in different States, -and even different parts of the same State. On examination, this -objection also may be obviated. Gentlemen tell you the high price of -this article at three or four hundred miles distance; is it not hence -presumable that there they consume as little as possible, while along -the sea-coasts they use it with a liberal hand? But whether it be -consumed on the sea-coast, or on the western waters, the tax is the -same, or but inconsiderably augmented; for I take it the great addition -which is made is in consequence of the charge of carriage. I cannot, -therefore, see by what magic gentlemen will prove to you that it is -increased four or five fold. We must also take into contemplation the -number of persons who consume it; here it will appear, that the weight -of population is much greater on the sea-coast than in the western parts -of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Carolina, consequently the consumption -must be greater. It was said, the argument I urged was not a good one, -because it proved too much, that an article of general consumption was -not the best article for taxation; now, I believe the maxim is just, and -when examined it will be found so. Taxes, to be just, should affect all, -and equally affect them, and not be left to fall partially upon a few. -This is more the case with salt than any other article which has yet -been taxed, and I believe is the only tax which will get at the pockets -of those to whom it is said to be obnoxious. But how comes it, if the -other articles are equally consumed in the back countries, that -gentlemen did not urge the argument of expense on transportation, and -the pretext that a tax would furnish the seller to extort from the -consumer. - -Mr. MADISON.--From the nature of the arguments made use of on this -occasion, it is necessary to proceed with some circumspection, though -not to depart from that policy which can be justified by reason and -experience. I am willing to trust a great deal to the good sense, -justice, and penetration of our fellow-citizens for support; and though -I think it might be just to lay a considerable duty generally on -imported articles, yet it would not be prudent or politic, at this time, -to do so. Let us now proceed to consider the subject before us, on the -principles of justice and principles of policy. In the first point of -view, we may consider the effect it will have on the different -descriptions of people throughout the United States, I mean different -descriptions, as they relate to property. I readily agree that, in -itself, a tax would be unjust and oppressive that did not fall on the -citizens according to their degree of property and ability to pay it; -were it, therefore, this single article which we are about to tax, I -should think it indispensable that it should operate equally, agreeably -to the principle I have just mentioned. But in order to determine -whether a tax on salt is just or unjust, we must consider it as part of -a system, and judge of the operation of this system as if it was but a -single article; if this is found to be unequal, it is also unjust. Now, -examine the preceding articles, and consider how they affect the rich, -and it will be found that they bear more than a just proportion -according to their ability to pay; by adding this article, we shall -rather equalize the disproportion than increase it, if it is true, as -has been often mentioned, that the poor will contribute more of this tax -than the rich. When we consider the tax as it operates on the different -parts of the United States, dividing the whole into the northern, -middle, and southern districts, it will be found that they contribute -also in proportion to their numbers and ability to pay. If there be any -distinction in this respect, it will be perceived to be in favor of the -southern division, because the species of property there consists of -mouths that consume salt in the same proportion as the whites; but they -have not this property in the middle and northern districts to pay taxes -for. The most important objection is, that the western part of our -country uses more salt than any other; this makes it unequal; but, -considered as a part of a system, the equilibrium is restored, when you -find this almost the only tax they will have to pay. Will they -contribute any thing by consuming imported spirits? Very little. Yet, -this is a principal source of revenue; they will subsist upon what they -procure at home; and will they submit to a direct tax, if they murmur at -so light a one on salt? Will they submit to an excise? If they would, I -trust it is not in the contemplation of gentlemen to propose it. - -Mr. WHITE, after some doubts, had made up his mind against the article -being taxed. We ought to pass no law that is unjust or oppressive in its -nature, or which the people may consider as unjust or oppressive; a duty -on salt would be considered in that light by a great number. Our -constituents expect some ease and relief, particularly the poorer sort -of people. It seems to be granted, from all that has been said, that it -will affect them in a manner which no other tax can, though, it is said, -they will not be affected beyond their proportion, as they pay nothing -for the consumption of wine, spirits, &c. because they use none. One -reason which influenced the committee to tax those articles, was to -abolish the use of them altogether, or prevent the excesses they -occasioned. Now will you urge in argument for taxing the poor, that they -already practise that temperance which you desire to bring universally -about? All taxes, it is admitted, are odious, and some merely from -opinion; but if they are odious from opinion, they ought to be carefully -guarded against, especially if the Government depends upon opinion for -support. - -Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said, they collected eight cents in his State, -and it caused no complaint that he knew of. - -The question on imposing six cents on salt was put and carried, as was a -motion for a drawback on salted provisions and fish. - -On manufactured tobacco. - -Mr. SHERMAN moved six cents, as he thought the duty ought to amount to a -prohibition. This was agreed to. - -On snuff, ten cents per pound. - -Mr. CARROLL moved to insert window and other glass. A manufacture of -this article was begun in Maryland, and attended with considerable -success; if the Legislature were to grant a small encouragement, it -would be permanently established; the materials were to be found in the -country in sufficient quantities to answer the most extensive demand. - -A desultory conversation arose in the committee respecting the propriety -of receiving the motion at this time, when it was agreed to add on all -window and other glass, except black quart bottles, ten per cent. _ad -valorem_. - -Mr. CLYMER informed the House of the state of the paper mills in -Pennsylvania; they were so numerous as to be able to supply a very -extensive demand in that and the neighboring States; they annually -produce about 70,000 reams of various kinds, which is sold as cheap as -it can be imported. This manufacture certainly is an important one; and -having grown up under legislative encouragement, it will be wise to -continue it. Thereupon it was agreed to lay an impost of seven and a -half per cent. _ad valorem_ on blank books, writing, printing, and -wrapping paper, and pasteboard; the same, without debate, was laid upon -canes, walking-sticks, whips, clothing ready made, on gold, silver, and -plated ware, and on jewelry and paste work; upon cabinet ware, buttons -of metal, saddles, gloves of leather, all hats of beaver, fur, wool, or -mixture of either, all millinery, castings of iron, or slit or rolled -iron, all leather tanned or tawed, or manufactures thereof, except such -as are otherwise rated. - -On every coach, chariot, or other four wheel carriage, and on every -chaise, solo, or other two wheel carriage, or parts thereof, fifteen per -cent. _ad valorem_. - - -SATURDAY, April 18. - -Mr. WHITE, from the Committee of Elections, reported that the committee -had examined the certificates and other credentials of the members -returned to serve in this House, and found them entitled to take their -seats; which report was concurred with. - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair. - -On motion of Mr. GOODHUE, anchors at seven and a half per cent. _ad -valorem_, was added. - -On motion of Mr. SHERMAN, nutmegs, cinnamon, raisins, figs, currants, -and almonds, were struck out. - -Mr. AMES introduced wool cards, with observing that they were -manufactured to the eastward as good and as cheap as the imported ones. - -Mr. CLYMER mentioned, that in the State of Pennsylvania, the manufacture -was carried to great perfection, and enough could be furnished to supply -the demand. A duty of fifty cents per dozen was imposed on wool cards. - -On wrought tin ware, seven and a half per centum _ad valorem_; on every -quintal of fish, fifty cents; and on every barrel of pickled fish, -seventy-five cents. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS moved the following: On all teas imported from China or -India, in ships built in the United States, and belonging wholly to a -citizen or citizens thereof, as follows: on bohea tea, per pound, six -cents; on all souchong and other black teas, ten cents; on superior -green teas, twenty cents; on all other teas, ten cents. - -On all teas imported from any other country, or from China or India, in -ships which are not the property of the United States, as follows: on -bohea tea, per pound, ten cents; souchong, and other black teas, fifteen -cents; on superior green teas, thirty cents; on all other green teas, -eighteen cents per pound. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS supported the motion, by observing that one effect of the -late glorious revolution was, to deprive the merchants of America of -most of the channels of commerce which they had before pursued. This -circumstance obliged them to search for other sources to employ their -vessels in. It had been discovered that a pretty lucrative trade could -be carried on with the countries in the east; the merchants have gone -largely into it, and it at present gives employment to some thousand -tons of American shipping and seamen; our success has been so great, as -to excite the jealousy of Europe, and nothing is left undone to cramp or -prevent our commercial operations in that quarter. The Legislature of -Pennsylvania, impressed with the importance of the subject, had granted -it aid by discriminating in the manner he proposed to the committee; and -with the like aid from the Government of the United States, the -merchants may no longer fear the machinations of the opulent companies -in Europe, who are unwilling to let us partake of a trade they so long -have had a monopoly of. Already the trade to India has had a very happy -effect in favor of our inhabitants, by reducing commodities brought from -thence to one half of their former price, and yet a sufficient profit is -left to enable those concerned to carry it on with advantage. - -Mr. MADISON felt a reluctance in being obliged to state his reasons why -he doubted the policy of the proposed measure. What, said he, is its -object? It is not to add to the revenue, for it will in fact tend to -diminish it, in that proportion which the importation from China lessens -that from other parts; it is not to increase our commerce, for long -voyages are unfriendly to it; it is not to increase the importation of -necessary articles, for India goods are mostly articles of luxury; it is -not to carry off our superfluities, for these articles are paid for -principally, if not altogether, in solid coin. If the trade is -beneficial at all to the United States, it must be in this single point -of view, that the articles can be imported cheaper through that channel -than any other; and, if so, that it is the interest of the people to be -supplied as cheap as possible. There are no collateral good purposes to -claim our attention in this case. It is not in the nature of things that -we should derive any other advantage than the one I have mentioned, -without it is that of raising our India commerce from its weak and -infant state to strength and vigor; to enable it to continue supplies at -a cheaper rate than they could otherwise be obtained. - -Mr. GOODHUE replied to Mr. MADISON's observations, respecting the mode -of paying for India goods, by informing the committee that very -considerable quantities of ginseng, naval stores, lumber, and -provisions, were shipped; other articles were sent also, and disposed of -at ports on this side of China, in order to procure the most suitable -cargo; so that we do not pay principally for their commodities in solid -coin, but send off superfluities to a considerable amount, much more -than if we were to procure our teas and nankeens from any part of -Europe. - -Mr. MADISON had not made the objection merely because the specie was -exported, but to show that it did not bring in an equivalent, as the -goods were mostly of that kind which are termed luxuries. - -Mr. BOUDINOT declared himself a friend to the Indian commerce. He -thought it encouraged the employment of shipping, and increased our -seamen; he knew its advantages to agriculture. The gentleman from -Virginia (Mr. MADISON) supposed but little of our productions were sent -in exchange for India goods; but our beef, pork, flour, and wheat, were -shipped for this purpose, not to China, yet to ports where proper -cargoes were taken in to answer the trade. Encouragement and protection -were necessary to prevent the large companies in Europe from -underselling our merchants, which they would readily do, at considerable -loss, if they could, in consequence, put a stop to our trade. He hoped, -therefore, the committee would not hesitate in adopting the motion. - -The motion was adopted accordingly. - -On coal per bushel ---- cents. - -Mr. BLAND informed the committee, that there were mines opened in -Virginia capable of supplying the whole of the United States, and, if -some restraint was laid on the importation of foreign coal, those mines -might be worked to advantage. He thought it needless to insist upon the -advantages resulting from a colliery, as a supply for culinary and -mechanical purposes, and as a nursery to train up seamen for a navy. He -moved three cents a bushel. - -Mr. HARTLEY was willing to admit a moderate duty, but thought three -cents would be a great discouragement to those manufactures which -necessarily consume large quantities of fuel. He moved one cent. - -Mr. PARKER said, that a less sum than three cents would not answer the -purpose intended. Coal came from England as ballast, and was sold so -low, as almost to prevent the working of their mines in Virginia. He -hoped, if the committee were disposed to encourage them, they would -proportion the means to the end; a duty of one cent would be void; -nothing under what was moved by his colleague (Mr. BLAND) could answer -the purpose. He hoped, therefore, the committee would agree to three -cents. - -On the question, there appeared a majority in favor of three cents. -After which the committee rose, and the House adjourned. - - -MONDAY, April 20. - -ABRAHAM BALDWIN and JAMES JACKSON, from Georgia, appeared and took their -seats. - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the chair. - -The following clause of the bill was agreed to, viz: "On all other -articles, five per cent. on their value at the time and place of -importation, except tin in pigs, tin plates, lead, old pewter, brass, -iron or brass wire, copper in plates, wool, dying woods and dying drugs, -(other than indigo,) raw hides, beaver, and all other furs, and deer -skins." - -Mr. FITZSIMONS proposed a drawback of six cents per gallon on all rum -distilled in the United States, exported without the limits of the same. - -Mr. MADISON asked if the quantity of rum so exported was very -considerable? He believed it was not; and he would not, for the sake of -encouraging that branch of trade, open a door by which frauds on the -revenue could be committed equal to the whole duty collected. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS could not say what quantity of rum was exported in that -way; but he feared, unless a drawback was allowed, it would be a great -injury to the manufacture. At the time the duty of six cents on molasses -was laid, he thought it was understood, the committee would allow a -drawback on the rum exported. There seems to be an apprehension that the -system of drawbacks will operate to the disadvantage of the revenue; but -he believed a mode could be devised to prevent frauds, in this case, -fully as effectually as on the importation. If this was not done, it -would be time enough for gentlemen to oppose it; they would have this -opportunity, because a bill, regulating the manner of collection, he -presumed, would pass at the same time with the one for levying the -duties. If drawbacks were not allowed, it would be a very considerable -restraint on commerce, particularly on the India trade, which he -believed was likely to be considerably extended. He was sorry the -gentlemen from Massachusetts were not there in their places,[20] to give -information to the committee respecting the quantity exported from that -State; from Pennsylvania the quantity was but small. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS contended for drawbacks generally, but on this article it -was particular injustice to omit it. The manufacture of rum was of -considerable importance in the Eastern States, but it would not be able -to stand a successful competition with West India rum in foreign -countries, while loaded with a duty of six cents per gallon. The tax on -molasses was that sum, and he looked upon it to be the same thing as if -it had been paid on the rum at distillation; one gallon of the former -yielding but one of the latter. - -Mr. MADISON thought there were very few cases in which drawbacks ought -to be allowed, perhaps none but what related to the East India trade. -The small proportion of distilled rum exported did not justify so great -a risk; but of the small proportion which went abroad, the greatest part -went to the coast of Africa. He feared this trade was inconsistent with -the good of mankind, and ought to be reprobated instead of encouraged. - -Mr. BLAND said the committee had spent several days in encouraging -manufactures, by selecting articles for revenue, and were now extending -their views to the encouragement of commerce. He thought there was some -impropriety in combining the clause proposed in this part of the bill, -and even doubted if it was in order; therefore would vote against it. - -The question was put on the motion for a drawback on country rum, and -lost. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS had another clause upon the same subject, only on more -general principles; he hoped gentlemen would consider well before they -doomed it to share the fate of the former. It was to this purpose: that -all the duties paid, or secured to be paid, upon goods imported, shall -be returned or discharged upon such of the said goods, as shall within ----- months be exported to any country without the limits of the United -States, except so much as shall be necessary to defray the expense that -may have accrued by the entry and the safe keeping thereof. The subjects -of duties and drawbacks are so connected by their nature, that he did -not see how they were to be separated. Gentlemen did not imagine that -what had been done tended to favor commerce; it certainly did not. Every -impost which is paid is a disadvantage to the person concerned in trade, -and nothing but necessity could induce a submission to it. The interest -of the landholder is undoubtedly blended with the commercial interest; -if the latter receive an injury, the former will have to sustain his -proportion of it; if drawbacks are not allowed, the operations of trade -will be considerably shackled; merchants will be obliged, in the first -instance, to send their cargoes to the place of consumption, and lose -the advantage of a circuitous freight, which alone is a profit of no -small magnitude. - -Mr. HARTLEY expressed his sorrow for the last decision of the committee; -he wished the question had not been put in the absence of the gentlemen -from Massachusetts, who were on a business in some degree of a public -nature. The present motion was only just brought in; he submitted, -therefore, to the committee, if it were not best to pass it over for the -present, in order to give time for consideration. - - -TUESDAY, April 21. - -Mr. HARTLEY asked and obtained leave of absence. - - -WEDNESDAY, April 22. - -PETER SYLVESTER, from New York, appeared and took his seat. - - -THURSDAY, April 23. - -JOHN HATHORN, from New York, appeared and took his seat. - - -FRIDAY, April 24. - -Mr. BOUDINOT reported, from the committee appointed to attend with a -committee from the Senate, to receive the President of the United -States, at the place of his embarkation from New Jersey, that the -committee did, according to order, together with a committee from the -Senate, attend at Elizabethtown, in New Jersey, on the 23d instant, at -which place the two committees met the President, and thence embarked -for this city, where they arrived about three o'clock in the afternoon -of the same day, and conducted him to the house appointed for his -residence. - -The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Vice President of -the United States, enclosing a resolution of the Senate, appointing a -committee to consider and report what style or titles it will be proper -to annex to the office of President and Vice President of the United -States, if any other than those given in the constitution; also to -consider of the time, place, and manner in which, and the person by -whom, the oath prescribed by the constitution, shall be administered to -the President, and to confer thereon with such committee as this House -should appoint for that purpose; whereupon, - -_Ordered_, That a committee, to consist of five members, be appointed -for the purpose expressed in the resolution of the Senate. - -The members elected were Messrs. BENSON, AMES, MADISON, CARROLL, and -SHERMAN. - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House then proceeded to consider the resolutions reported by the -Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. - -Mr. BOUDINOT complained that the articles were generally taxed too high, -not too high for the article to bear, but too high for the due -collection of the revenue. Every thing we tax should be considered as it -relates to the interest of the importer, as well as other circumstances; -now, if it is discovered that the duties are so great as to make it a -beneficial trade to the merchant to run his goods, he will do so, and -injure the revenue. - -Mr. MADISON was sensible that high duties had a tendency to promote -smuggling, and in case those kinds of frauds were successfully practised -the revenue must be diminished; yet he believed the sum proposed on -spirits was not so high as to produce those effects to any considerable -degree. If any article is capable of paying a heavy duty, it is this; if -the duty on any article is capable of being collected with certainty, it -is this; if a duty on any article is consonant with the sentiment of the -people of America, it is this; why then should not the article be made -as tributary as possible to the wants of Government? But, besides these -favorable circumstances, I think the combination of the merchants will -come in aid of the law; the people will also lend their aid. These -circumstances would do much toward insuring the due collection of the -revenue. - -Mr. JACKSON seconded Mr. BOUDINOT's motion for reducing the duties, -because he was well convinced they were too high even to be well -collected, unless we establish custom-houses every ten or twelve miles, -like watch-towers, along the sea-coast. When trade is so unproductive, -the Legislature ought to be careful how they make it more worth a man's -while to live by committing frauds upon the revenue than by practising -honest commerce. - -There is another consideration which particularly regarded the Georgia -trade. That country, abounding with lumber of the most luxurious growth, -could only exchange it for rum; and a very considerable commerce grew -out of this intercourse favorable to Georgia. This would be affected by -the imposition of heavy duties; but commercial considerations, we shall -be told, form only a secondary object in this business. There is another -proposition in which he acquiesced; it would be more convenient, and -more to the honor of the House, to make their first essay with low -duties; because, if they persisted in laying them high, they would be -compelled to an inglorious retreat, and the Government would be -insulted. In the State he represented, it was next to impossible to -collect the revenue, the country was so intersected with navigable -creeks and rivers, if the people were disposed to evade the payment of -it; and there was no more certain way to produce this disposition than -by making it their interest to defraud you. - -Mr. BOUDINOT was not ashamed to confess that he wanted the advantages of -commercial knowledge on a question where the principles of trade were -interwoven; but he opposed high duties on a conviction in his own mind -that they could not be collected. He repeated some few of his former -arguments to show why he held this opinion; but it was not the -particular article of rum that he was opposed to, it was the high scale -on which the duties were laid generally, and that only from an idea that -greater revenue might be obtained from less duties. - -Mr. TUCKER wished the duties to be lowered, and proposed to the -committee to strike off seven cents from the fifteen; by varying his -motion in this manner, he expected the sense of the House could be taken -on his proposition first, notwithstanding the rule that "the question -shall be put on the highest sum first." He joined in the opinion that -high duties were productive of smuggling; that notwithstanding the -powers and vigilance of custom-house officers, and the whole Executive, -contraband trade is carried on in every nation where the duties are so -high; the facility with which it could be done in America ought to show -a prudent Legislature the degree of probability; unless this can be -guarded against, what will the law avail? It can avail nothing. Besides, -the higher the duty is laid, the more you expose the officer to the -temptation of being corrupted; when that is done, the revenue will be -very unproductive. - -Mr. BLAND would second the gentleman last up, but thought it was not in -order to have the question taken first on the lowest sum. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS observed to the House, that the decision of the present -question, in his mind, involved some very important alterations in the -present measure; the consequences resulting from which ought to be well -considered. In order, therefore, to gain time for this purpose, he would -move an adjournment; whereupon the House adjourned. - - -SATURDAY, April 25. - -Mr. BENSON, from the committee appointed to consider of the time, place, -and manner in which, and of the person by whom the oath prescribed by -the constitution shall be administered to the President of the United -States, and to confer with a committee of the Senate for the purpose, -reported as followeth: - - That the President hath been pleased to signify to them - that any time or place which both Houses may think proper - to appoint, and any manner which shall appear most eligible - to them, will be acceptable to him: that requisite - preparations cannot probably be made before Thursday next: - that the President be on that day formally received by both - Houses in the Senate Chamber: that the Representatives' - Chamber being capable of receiving the greater number of - persons, that therefore the President do take the oath in - that place, and in the presence of both Houses: that after - the formal reception of the President in the Senate - Chamber, he be attended by both Houses to the - Representatives' Chamber, and that the oath be administered - by the Chancellor of this State. - - The committee further report it as their opinion, that it - will be proper that a committee of both Houses be appointed - to take order for further conducting the ceremonial. - -The said report was twice read; and, on the question put thereupon, -agreed to by the House. - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. BENSON, AMES, and CARROLL be a committee on the -part of this House, pursuant to the said report. - - -MONDAY, April 27. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Vice President of -the United States, enclosing certain proceedings of the Senate, touching -the ceremonial of the formal reception of the President of the United -States, by both Houses, which were read, and ordered to lie on the -table. - -Mr. BENSON, from the committee of both Houses, appointed to take order -for conducting the ceremonial of the formal reception of the President -of the United States, reported as followeth: - - "That it appears to the committee more eligible that the - oath should be administered to the President in the outer - gallery adjoining the Senate Chamber, than in the - Representatives' Chamber, and therefore submit to the - respective Houses the propriety of authorizing their - committees to take order as to the place where the oath - shall be administered to the President, the resolutions of - Saturday, assigning the Representatives' Chamber as the - place, notwithstanding." - -The said report being twice read, - - _Resolved_, That this House doth concur in the said report, - and authorize the committee to take order for the change of - place thereby proposed. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Vice President of -the United States, enclosing two orders of the Senate, one of the 13th -instant, appointing a committee to confer with any committee to be -appointed on the part of this House, respecting the future disposition -of the papers, &c. in the office of the late Secretary of the United -States: the other of the 27th instant, for the attendance of both -Houses, with the President of the United States, after the oath shall be -administered to him, to hear divine service at St. Paul's Chapel: which -was read, and ordered to lie on the table. - - -TUESDAY, April 28. - -Mr. RICHARD BLAND LEE, from the committee to whom was recommitted the -report respecting the mode of communicating papers, bills, and messages, -between the two Houses, reported as followth: - - "When a message shall be sent from the Senate to the House - of Representatives, it shall be announced at the door of - the House by the doorkeeper, and shall be respectfully - communicated to the Chair, by the person by whom it may be - sent. - - "The same ceremony shall be observed when a message shall - be sent from the House of Representatives to the Senate. - - "Messages shall be sent by such persons as a sense of - propriety in each House may determine to be proper." - -The said report was twice read, and, on the question put thereupon, -agreed to by the House. - -A letter from Matthias Ogden, of New Jersey, referring to sundry -petitions from citizens of that State, complaining of illegality in the -late election of Representatives for that State to this House was read -and ordered to lie on the table. - -The order of the Senate of the 13th instant was read, appointing a -committee to confer with any committee to be appointed on the part of -this House, respecting the future disposition of the papers in the -office of the late Secretary of the United States; whereupon - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. TRUMBULL, CADWALADER, and JACKSON, be a -committee for that purpose. - - -WEDNESDAY, April 29. - -The House proceeded to consider the report from the Committee of -Elections (which lay on the table) on the petition of David Ramsay, of -the State of South Carolina, suggesting that William Smith, returned a -member of this House, as elected within that State, was, at the time of -his election, ineligible; and the said report being amended to read as -followeth: - - That in this case it will be sufficient in the first - instance, that a committee take such proofs as can be - obtained in this city respecting the facts stated in the - petition, and report the same to the House--That Mr. Smith - be permitted to be present from time to time when such - proofs are taken, to examine the witnesses, and to offer - counter-proofs, which shall also be received by the - committee, and reported to the House--That if the proofs so - to be reported shall be declared by the House insufficient - to verify the material facts stated in the petition, or - such other facts as the House shall deem proper to be - inquired into, it will then be necessary for the House to - direct a further inquiry, and especially the procuring - whatever additional testimony may be supposed to be in - South Carolina, as the case may require--That all questions - arising on the proofs be decided by the House, without any - previous opinion thereon reported by a committee. - - _Resolved_, That this House doth agree to the said report, - and that it be an instruction to the Committee of Elections - to proceed accordingly. - -On motion, - -_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and report an -estimate of the supplies requisite for the present year, and of the net -produce of the impost as agreed to by the House, and that Messrs. GERRY, -SMITH, (of Maryland,) and PARKER, be of the said committee. - -The House proceeded to consider the following resolution of the Senate, -to wit: - - "In Senate, April 27. - - "_Resolved_, That after the oath shall have been - administered to the President, he, attended by the Vice - President, and the members of the Senate and House of - Representatives, proceed to St. Paul's Chapel to hear - divine service, to be performed by the Chaplains to - Congress already appointed:" Whereupon, - - _Resolved_, That this House doth concur with the Senate in - the said resolution: amended to read as followeth, to wit: - - "That after the oath shall have been administered to the - President, the Vice President and members of the Senate, - the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, - will accompany him to St. Paul's Chapel, to hear divine - service performed by the Chaplains of Congress." - -_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said resolution to -the Senate, and desire their concurrence.--Adjourned. - - -THURSDAY, April 30. - -JONATHAN GROUT, from Massachusetts, appeared and took his seat. - -This being the day on which the President of the United States was -inaugurated, no other business, of course, was attended to. The -President's address to both Houses appears in the proceedings of the -Senate.[21] - - -FRIDAY, May 1. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a copy of the speech of the President -of the United States, to both Houses of Congress, delivered yesterday in -the Senate Chamber, immediately after his inauguration, which being -read, - -On motion, - - _Resolved_, That the said speech be committed to a - Committee of the whole House. - -The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. -PAGE in the chair. And after adopting the following resolution, the -committee rose, and reported it to the House, which agreed to it. - - _Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that - an address to the President ought to be prepared, - expressing the congratulations of the House of - Representatives, on the distinguished proof given him of - the affection and confidence of his fellow-citizens, by the - unanimous suffrage which has appointed him to the high - station which he fills; the approbation felt by the House - of the patriotic sentiments and enlightened policy - recommended by his speech; and assuring him of their - disposition to concur in giving effect to every measure - which may tend to secure the liberties, promote the - harmony, and advance the happiness and prosperity of their - country. - -_Ordered_, That a committee to consist of five members be appointed to -prepare an address pursuant to the said resolution. The members elected -Messrs. MADISON, CLYMER, SHERMAN, GALE, and BENSON. - -A motion was made that the House do come to the following resolution: - - _Resolved_, That ---- per annum be the compensation to be - allowed to the President of the United States, during the - term for which he is to be elected. - -The said resolution being read, was committed to a Committee of the -whole House. - -The House then proceeded by ballot to the appointment of a Chaplain to -Congress on the part of this House. Upon examining the ballots, it -appeared that the Rev. WILLIAM LINN was elected. - -SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire, appeared and took his seat. - - -TUESDAY, May 5. - -Mr. BENSON, from the committee appointed to consider of, and report what -style or titles it will be proper to annex to the office of President -and Vice President of the United States, if any other than those given -in the Constitution, and to confer with a committee of the Senate -appointed for the same purpose, reported as followeth: - -"That it is not proper to annex any style or title to the respective -styles or titles of office expressed in the Constitution." - -And the said report being twice read at the Clerk's table, was, on the -question put thereupon, agreed to by the House. - -_Ordered_, that the Clerk of this House do acquaint the Senate -therewith. - -Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed to prepare an address on the -part of this House to the President of the United States, in answer to -his speech to both Houses of Congress, reported as followeth: - - _The Address of the House of Representatives to George - Washington, President of the United States._ - - SIR: The Representatives of the People of the United States - present their congratulations on the event by which your - fellow-citizens have attested the pre-eminence of your - merit. You have long held the first place in their esteem. - You have often received tokens of their affection. You now - possess the only proof that remained of their gratitude for - your services, of their reverence for your wisdom, and of - their confidence in your virtues. You enjoy the highest, - because the truest honor, of being the First Magistrate, by - the unanimous choice of the freest people on the face of - the earth. - - We well know the anxieties with which you must have obeyed - a summons from the repose reserved for your declining - years, into public scenes, of which you had taken your - leave for ever. But the obedience was due to the occasion. - It is already applauded by the universal joy which welcomes - you to your station. And we cannot doubt that it will be - rewarded with all the satisfaction with which an ardent - love for your fellow-citizens must review successful - efforts to promote their happiness. - - This anticipation is not justified merely by the past - experience of your signal services. It is particularly - suggested by the pious impressions under which you mean to - commence your administration, and the enlightened maxims by - which you mean to conduct it. We feel with you the - strongest obligations to adore the invisible hand which has - led the American people through so many difficulties, to - cherish a conscious responsibility for the destiny of - republican liberty; and to seek the only sure means of - preserving and recommending the precious deposit in a - system of legislation founded on the principles of an - honest policy, and directed by the spirit of a diffusive - patriotism. - - The question arising out of the fifth article of the - Constitution will receive all the attention demanded by its - importance; and will, we trust, be decided, under the - influence of all the considerations to which you allude. - - In forming the pecuniary provisions for the Executive - Department, we shall not lose sight of a wish resulting - from motives which give it a peculiar claim to our regard. - Your resolution, in a moment critical to the liberties of - your country, to renounce all personal emolument, was among - the many presages of your patriotic services, which have - been amply fulfilled; and your scrupulous adherence now to - the law then imposed on yourself, cannot fail to - demonstrate the purity, whilst it increases the lustre of a - character which has so many titles to admiration. - - Such are the sentiments which we have thought fit to - address to you. They flow from our own hearts, and we - verily believe that, among the millions we represent, - there is not a virtuous citizen whose heart will disown - them. - - All that remains is, that we join in your fervent - supplications for the blessings of heaven on our country; - and that we add our own for the choicest of these blessings - on the most beloved of our citizens. - -Said address was committed to a Committee of the Whole; and the House -immediately resolved itself into a committee, Mr. PAGE in the chair. The -committee proposing no amendment thereto, rose and reported the address, -and the House agreed to it, and resolved that the Speaker, attended by -the members of this House, do present the said address to the President. - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. SINNICKSON, COLES, and SMITH (of South -Carolina), be a committee to wait on the President to know when it will -be convenient for him to receive the same. - -Mr. CLYMER, from the committee appointed for the purpose, reported a -bill for laying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into -the United States, which passed its first reading. - -_Amendment of the Constitution._ - - [Mr. BLAND presented the application of the Legislature of - Virginia, to have a convention called of deputies from all - the States, to consider the defects of the Constitution and - report amendments; and moved to refer the application to - the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.] - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--According to the terms of the Constitution, the business -cannot be taken up until a certain number of States have concurred in -similar applications; certainly the House is disposed to pay a proper -attention to the application of so respectable a State as Virginia, but -if it is a business which we cannot interfere with in a constitutional -manner, we had better let it remain on the files of the House until the -proper number of applications come forward. - -Mr. BLAND thought there could be no impropriety in referring any subject -to a committee; but surely this deserved the serious and solemn -consideration of Congress. He hoped no gentleman would oppose the -compliment of referring it to a Committee of the Whole; beside, it would -be a guide to the deliberations of the committee on the subject of -amendments, which would shortly come before the House. - -Mr. MADISON said, he had no doubt but the House was inclined to treat -the present application with respect, but he doubted the propriety of -committing it, because it would seem to imply that the House had a right -to deliberate upon the subject. This, he believed, was not the case -until two-thirds of the State Legislatures concurred in such -application, and then it is out of the power of Congress to decline -complying, the words of the Constitution being express and positive -relative to the agency Congress may have in case of applications of this -nature. "The Congress, wherever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it -necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution; or, on the -application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, -shall call a convention for proposing amendments." From hence it must -appear that Congress have no deliberative power on this occasion. The -most respectful and constitutional mode of performing our duty will be, -to let it be entered on the minutes, and remain upon the files of the -House until similar applications come to hand from two-thirds of the -States. - -Mr. BOUDINOT hoped the gentleman who desired the commitment of the -application would not suppose him wanting in respect to the State of -Virginia. He entertained the most profound respect for her--but it was -on a principle of respect to order and propriety that he opposed the -commitment; enough had been said to convince gentlemen that it was -improper to commit--for what purpose can it be done? what can the -committee report? The application is to call a new convention. Now, in -this case, there is nothing left for us to do, but to call one when -two-thirds of the State Legislatures apply for that purpose. He hoped -the gentleman would withdraw his motion for commitment. - -Mr. BLAND.--The application now before the committee contains a number -of reasons why it is necessary to call a convention. By the fifth -article of the Constitution, Congress are obliged to order this -convention when two-thirds of the Legislatures apply for it; but how can -these reasons be properly weighed, unless it be done in committee? -Therefore, I hope the House will agree to refer it. - -Mr. HUNTINGTON thought it proper to let the application remain on the -table, it can be called up with others when enough are presented to make -two-thirds of the whole States. There would be an evident impropriety in -committing, because it would argue a right in the House to deliberate, -and, consequently, a power to procrastinate the measure applied for. - -Mr. TUCKER thought it not right to disregard the application of any -State, and inferred, that the House had a right to consider every -application that was made; if two-thirds had not applied, the subject -might be taken into consideration, but if two-thirds had applied, it -precluded deliberation on the part of the House. He hoped the present -application would be properly noticed. - -Mr. GERRY.--The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) told us yesterday, -that he meant to move the consideration of amendments on the fourth -Monday of this month; he did not make such motion then, and may be -prevented by accident, or some other cause, from carrying his intention -into execution when the time he mentioned shall arrive. I think the -subject however is introduced to the House, and, perhaps, it may consist -with order to let the present application lie on the table until the -business is taken up generally. - -Mr. PAGE thought it the best way to enter the application at large upon -the Journals, and do the same by all that came in, until sufficient were -made to obtain their object, and let the original be deposited in the -archives of Congress. He deemed this the proper mode of disposing of it, -and what is in itself proper can never be construed into disrespect. - -Mr. BLAND acquiesced in this disposal of the application. Whereupon it -was ordered to be entered at length on the Journals, and the original to -be placed on the files of Congress. - - -_Duties on Tonnage._ - -The House then resumed the consideration of the Report of the Committee -of the Whole on the state of the Union, in relation to the duty on -tonnage. - -Mr. JACKSON (from Georgia) moved to lower the tonnage duty from thirty -cents, as it stood in the report of the Committee on ships of nations in -alliance, and to insert twenty cents, with a view of reducing the -tonnage on the vessels of Powers not in alliance. In laying a higher -duty on foreign tonnage than on our own, I presume, said he, the -Legislature have three things in contemplation: 1st, The encouragement -of American shipping; 2ndly, Raising a revenue; and 3rdly, The support -of light-houses and beacons for the purposes of navigation. Now, for the -first object, namely, the encouragement of American shipping, I judge -twenty cents will be sufficient, the duty on our own being only six -cents; but if twenty cents are laid in this case, I conclude that a -higher rate will be imposed upon the vessels of nations not in alliance. -As these form the principal part of the foreign navigation, the duty -will be adequate to the end proposed. I take it, the idea of revenue -from this source is not much relied upon by the House; and surely twenty -cents is enough to answer all the purposes of erecting and supporting -the necessary light-houses. On a calculation of what will be paid in -Georgia, I find a sufficiency for these purposes; and I make no doubt -but enough will be collected in every State from this duty. The tonnage -employed in Georgia is about twenty thousand tons, fourteen thousand -tons are foreign; the duty on this quantity will amount to £466 13s. 4d. -Georgia currency. I do not take in the six cents upon American vessels, -yet this sum appears to be as much as can possibly be wanted for the -purpose of improving our navigation. - -I shall just mention to the House one observation more, to show that the -produce of the Southern States cannot bear a high tonnage duty. The -value of rice, tobacco, and indigo has fallen so much in foreign -markets, that they are no longer worth the exportation. The merchants -complain that they lose by those remittances; and they have now got into -the practice of sending off specie; forty thousand dollars have been -sent in one vessel. This is a daily practice, and we shall shortly have -no specie left to pay our debts. The difficulty will be increased, as -no money will remain to pay for the duties imposed on the articles -imported. I hope the government will not insist upon our walking before -we are able to creep, or compel us to make bricks without straw. These -are my sentiments on the present question; if they have weight, the -House will agree with me in reducing the duty; but if the House persist -in continuing the high rates agreed to in committee, I shall content -myself with having done my duty by warning them of the danger. - -Mr. AMES.--I hope the reduction moved for by the gentleman who has just -sat down will not be agreed to; for I trust the House is not satisfied -with the reasons offered in its support. A great deal has been now said -respecting the jealousy entertained of the advantages given by this -preference to some States; a great deal was also said before the -committee adopted the measure. I do not think this doctrine of jealousy -is natural to us. I know it has been cultivated by the British, and -disseminated through the United States; they had their particular views -in exciting such ideas; but I do not believe, that because we have -various we have opposite interests. Upon examination there will be found -but few of our interests that clash with each other so much as to admit -a well grounded jealousy. Nature has so arranged our circumstances, that -the people of the several States pursue various employments which -support each other. If one end of the continent is employed in -manufactures and commerce, the other is attentive to agriculture; so far -are they, therefore, from being rivals, that, both in a natural and -political sense, they mutually are necessary and beneficial to each -other's interests. I wish gentlemen, before they insist upon this -jealousy, would point out the causes of its existence. So far from this -being the case, I believe the individual interest of each part is -compatible with the general interest; and that the public opinion is the -same, is clearly demonstrated by the attachment professed by every part -to remain in union--it is acknowledged, that on this principle our -existence as a nation depends. - -This being the case, I do not listen with any great degree of concern to -arguments founded on that cause. So far from surveying the affluence or -ease of my Southern brethren with the jaundiced eye of jealousy, I -contemplate their prosperity with ineffable satisfaction. I look with an -equal eye upon the success of every State through the whole extent of -United America. I wish their interests to be equally consulted; and if I -may judge of the feelings of the people, by those of their -representatives on this floor, I may venture to say there was never less -reason to apprehend discord or envy than at this time. I believe the -fact is so, because I feel it. I appeal with confidence to the gentlemen -round me, whether they have not found the disposition of those who were -suspected most to favor navigation, ready to concede what was asked for -the encouragement of every other interest? Whether a like conciliatory -conduct has not been observed by the advocates of manufactures? I ask -gentlemen, whether the language they have heard from the several parts -of this House has not been much more congenial to their sentiments than -they expected, and the measures pursued more coincident to their -feelings than what they looked for? I believe, at the moment I am making -this observation, the breasts of gentlemen beat in concert with it; I am -sure my feelings accord most cordially in the sentiment. - -I believe the encouragement of our navigation is looked upon to be -indispensably necessary; its importance has never been denied. Now, I -ask if gentlemen are inclined to support and extend our navigation, -whether they are not willing to proportion the mean to the end, and -adopt measures tending to increase the quantity of American shipping? It -has been often justly remarked, that the Constitution, under which we -deliberate, originated in commercial necessity. The mercantile part of -our fellow-citizens, who are the firm friends to an equal and energetic -government, hope the improvement of our navigation may obtain the -attention of Congress; it is but justice that it be early attended to, -and it will give general satisfaction to find it considered as an -important object by the General Government. The most liberal of the -friends of American commerce only wish for such regulations as may put -our navigation on a footing with foreigners. If other nations have -restricted our navigation by regulations or charges, we must restrict -them by a tonnage, or some other duty, so as to restore an equality; but -this will not be found to be the case in the present instance. The -moderate and inconsiderable duty of thirty cents on foreigners in -treaty, and fifty cents on others not in treaty, will not enable our -vessels to go abroad with as much advantage as foreigners can come here; -so that the proposed encouragement may perhaps fall short of procuring -us a maritime strength equal to our national security. - -The observations of gentlemen tending to show that one end of the -continent will suffer more by the regulation contemplated by the House -than the other, are, I conceive, not well founded. The price of freight -will equalize itself. If the people of Carolina or Georgia pay a high -freight in consequence of the tonnage duty, the State of Massachusetts -must pay the same, or her vessels will go to the southward in search of -freight, so that the Eastern States have no peculiar interest in the -measure. It has been suggested, that because Massachusetts has foreign -vessels in her employ, she cannot transport produce for -others--Massachusetts, by reason of that influence which Britain has, is -obliged to receive some of her supplies in foreign bottoms, but this is -only a proof that the evil requires a remedy. I might here easily draw a -picture of the distress to which the Eastern country is subjected for -want of a protecting hand: her shipwrights are glad to work for two -shillings and sixpence a day, or less, and less will not maintain them -and their families. Their lumber is of no value, it lies rotting in the -forests, for want of encouragement to frame it into ships; the other -artisans are clamorous for employment, and without a speedy relief they -will have to desert the country. I believe if this relief is extended to -them, it will give a spring to their industry, and a little time will -render them serviceable to their fellow-citizens in the South. They will -find markets for their tobacco, which is now rotting, and their valuable -productions will be transported to all parts of the globe. From these -circumstances, I am led to beg gentlemen to consider, that the -improvement and extension of our navigation is one of the most important -objects that can come before the Legislature; that there are abundant -proofs that a regulation in favor of American shipping is absolutely -necessary to restore them to an equality with foreigners; and if they -are convinced with me of its importance and necessity, they will not -think the sums agreed to in committee too high for the purpose of -protecting the navigation of the United States. - -Mr. BURKE.--Something has been said relative to a jealousy subsisting in -the Southern States respecting the navigation interest; I shall, -therefore, make an observation or two on that subject. So far as my own -knowledge of that country goes, I believe the citizens look with -indignation at the power which foreigners have over their commerce. So -far from being jealous of the Eastern States, they look forward to some -future day when their navigation will be secured to that part of the -Union. They know that it possesses superior maritime advantages, and -expect they will hereafter afford security to them. They know, that from -the spirit and industry of the people of New England, they may derive -commercial and agricultural benefits. This is also my own judgment on -the point. I know they cannot now supply us with vessels to transport -our produce, but I hope the time will shortly come when they will have -the ability; in the mean time, when I consider how much the Southern -staples are fallen in price, and the great debts due in that country, I -must say, that I fear a heavy tonnage will be attended with very -dangerous consequences. There are very few foreigners but British come -among us, and a high duty laid upon their ships will fall severely upon -the planters. The Southern people are willing to render any assistance -to increase the maritime importance of the Eastern States, as soon as -they are able; if, therefore, a distant period is fixed for the -commencement of the high duties, I shall be in favor of them; but if -they are to take place immediately, I fear they will do a great deal of -injury in the present deranged and calamitous situation of our country. - -Mr. GOODHUE was glad to hear from the several parts of the House, that -there was a disposition to give a preference to American shipping. This -principle being fixed, it only remained for the House to ascertain the -proper degree of encouragement to be given; the rate agreed to in the -committee was not more than good policy required. The gentleman from -Georgia fears that the people of his State will suffer for want of -vessels, or pay a higher freight than their neighbors; but a high duty -is not contended for in the first instance, it is only such a degree of -encouragement as will enable us to enter into a competition with -foreigners in our own carrying trade. The same gentleman has said, -Massachusetts has not vessels enough for her own commerce, and, -therefore, cannot furnish any for others; although Massachusetts employs -7 or 8,000 tons of foreign shipping; yet it is supposed she supplies the -other States with 30,000 tons. The circumstance of 5,000 hogsheads of -tobacco lying to rot for want of vessels, when some thousand tons of -ours are idle for want of employment, does not prove the want of -shipping, so much as that the price of the article is too high for a -foreign market. If the produce is held so high as not to bear the -expense of transportation, the merchants who import will be obliged to -send off money in payment. In order to remedy these inconveniences in -future, it will be necessary to hold out sufficient encouragement for -the construction of vessels. Perhaps it may be good policy to allow a -moderate tonnage duty at this time, to be increased hereafter. - -Mr. MADISON.--I believe every gentleman who hears the observations from -the different quarters of this House, discovers great reason for every -friend of the United States to congratulate himself upon the evident -disposition which has been displayed to conduct our business with -harmony and concert. - -We have evinced a disposition different from what was expected to arise -from the different interests of the several parts of the Union. I am -persuaded, that less contrariety of sentiment has taken place than was -supposed by gentlemen, who did not choose to magnify the causes of -variance; every thing we have hitherto done, tends to make this evident. -The importance of the Union is justly estimated by all its parts; this -being founded upon a perfect accordance of interest, it may become -perpetual. I know that the point before us has often been selected as a -proof that there was an incompatibility of interest in the United -States. On this opinion I beg leave to remark, that the difference in -point of capacity in the several States to build ships, and furnish -seamen, is much less than has generally been supposed. From the -extremity of the Northern States until we reach South Carolina, -materials of all sorts for ship-building can be obtained in abundance -from the bounty of nature; even Georgia abounds with materials of -superior quality; although their population disqualifies them for -ship-building at present, yet their advantages are such as to enable -them in a short time to rival the most prosperous State. In the next -place, I may remark, that so far as the encouragement of our own -shipping will be given at the expense of the people of the United -States, it will diffuse and equalize its operations in every part. The -ships belonging to one place will, like the people, seek employment in -another where better wages are obtained, and this, in its operations, -will level any inequalities supposed to arise from legislative -interference. - - -WEDNESDAY, May 6. - -JOHN VINING, from Delaware, appeared and took his seat. - -The bill for laying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandises imported -into the United States, was read a second time, and ordered to be -committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow. - -On motion of Mr. SHERMAN, the House entered upon the consideration of -the amendments of the Senate to the bill for regulating the time and -manner of administering certain oaths. - -The following amendments being before them, to wit: - - "That the members of the several State Legislatures, and - all executive and judicial officers of the several States, - who have been heretofore chosen or appointed, or who shall - be chosen or appointed before the first day of August next, - and who shall then be in office, shall, within one month - thereafter, take the same oath or affirmation, except where - they shall have taken it before; which may be administered - by any person authorized by the law of the State in which - such office shall be holden to administer oaths. And the - members of the several State Legislatures, and all - executive and judicial officers of the several States, who - shall be chosen or appointed after the said first day of - August, shall, before they proceed to execute the duties of - their respective offices, take the foregoing oath or - affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or - persons who by the law of the State shall be authorized to - administer the oath of office; and the person or persons so - administering the oath hereby required to be taken shall - cause a record or certificate thereof to be made, in the - same manner as, by the law of the State, he or they shall - be directed to record or certify the oath of office." - -Mr. GERRY said, he did not discover what part of the constitution gave -to Congress the power of making this provision, except so much of it as -respects the form of the oath; it is not expressly given by any clause -of the constitution; and if it does exist, must arise from the sweeping -clause, as it is frequently termed, in the eighth section of the first -article of the constitution, which authorizes Congress "to make all laws -which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the -foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in -the Government of the United States, or in any department or office -thereof." To this clause there seems to be no limitation, so far as it -applies to the extension of the powers vested by the constitution; but -even this clause gives no legislative authority to Congress to carry -into effect any power not expressly vested by the constitution. In the -constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, provision is made, -that the members of the Legislatures of the several States, and all -executive and judicial officers thereof, shall be bound by oath to -support the constitution. But there is no provision for empowering the -Government of the United States, or any officer or department thereof, -to pass a law obligatory on the members of the Legislatures of the -several States, and other officers thereof, to take this oath. This is -made their duty already by the constitution, and no such law of Congress -can add force to the obligation; but, on the other hand, if it is -admitted that such a law is necessary, it tends to weaken the -constitution which requires such aid; neither is any law, other than to -prescribe the form of the oath, necessary or proper to carry this part -of the constitution into effect; for the oath required by the -constitution being a necessary qualification for the State officers -mentioned, cannot be dispensed with by any authority whatever other than -the people, and the judicial power of the United States, extending to -all cases arising in law or equity under this constitution. The Judges -of the United States, who are bound to support the constitution, may, in -all cases within their jurisdiction, annul the official acts of State -officers, and even the acts of the members of the State Legislatures, if -such members and officers were disqualified to do or pass such acts, by -neglecting or refusing to take this oath. He concluded his observations, -by submitting to the House the propriety of appointing a Committee of -Conference, to state to the Senate the doubts of the House upon this -subject. - -Mr. BLAND had no doubt respecting the powers of Congress on this -subject. The evident meaning of the words of the constitution implied, -that Congress should have the power to pass a law, directing the time -and manner of taking the oath prescribed for supporting the -constitution. There can be no hesitation respecting the power to direct -their own officers, and the constituent parts of Congress; besides, if -the State Legislatures were to be left to arrange and direct this -business, they would pass different laws, and the officers might be -bound in different degrees to support the constitution. He not only -thought Congress had the power to do what was proposed by the Senate, -but he judged it expedient also, and therefore should agree to the -amendment. - -Mr. JACKSON.--I believe this House, and the other branch of the -Legislature, have the power, by the constitution, to pass a law, -obliging the officers of the State Governments to take the oath required -by the constitution that their States have adopted, and which has become -the supreme law of the land. I believe the general opinion of the House -inclines to favor this sentiment. It then only remains to examine the -measure on the principle of policy. Here I must give my opinion. I -believe, sir, that it is not time to bring it forward, that it is not -expedient at present, because some jealousies exist respecting the -jurisdiction of the Federal and State Governments. The States had better -be left to regulate this matter among themselves, for an oath that is -not voluntary is seldom held sacred. Compelling people to swear to -support the constitution, will be like the attempts of Britain, during -the late revolution, to secure the fidelity of those who fell within the -influence of her arms, and, like those attempts, they will be -frustrated; the moment the party could get from under her wings, the -oath of allegiance was disregarded. If the State officers will not -willingly pay this testimony of their attachment to the constitution, -what is extorted from them against their inclination is not much to be -relied on. Besides, it argues a jealousy in the National Government, -which can have no foundation. Can any thing show more friendly to the -Union than adopting the constitution, and sending us here to administer -it? If we judge from these circumstances, there is good reason to -believe that the State Governments will pay a proper attention to the -duty enjoined upon them by the constitution. I shall readily agree, if -they do not pay this attention, that the National Legislature ought to -exercise its powers to compel them; but they know the necessity there is -for conforming to what the constitution orders; if they neglect it, it -becomes in some degree a relinquishment of their power in government. No -State Legislature can pass an act that will have the efficacy of a law. -Suppose a judge on the bench were to condemn a criminal to die for an -offence; the sentence could not be carried into execution, if the judge -had omitted to qualify himself for the discharge of the duties of his -office. In short, there would be a total stagnation of the Government, -its vital powers would be suspended, until they were revived by the -action of the constitution. Besides, the constitution partakes of the -nature of a compact; it guaranties to the State Governments the -principles of a republican government, conditionally, that the States -conform themselves to what is declared in the constitution; they must -therefore take the oath directed by the constitution, or infringe the -compact; in which case I apprehend, the guaranty is virtually withdrawn; -this is another inducement for the States to perform their duty. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--I believe, Mr. Speaker, if there is any thing improper in -making provision that the officers shall take an oath to support the -Government, the fault cannot properly be charged upon us, because the -provision is already made, and adopted by our constituents; and we are -to suppose that some beneficial effects were intended by it; while we -are reprobating the measure, let us take care we do not fall under the -censure, which the observation of the gentleman last up brought to our -view, of taking an oath, and neglecting to fulfil the duties enjoined by -it. I believe, sir, that the persons who are to take this oath in -conformity to the constitution, will conceive themselves, after having -taken such oath, under an obligation to support the constitution. It has -been said by one gentleman, that Congress have not the power to carry -this regulation into effect. Only a few words will be necessary to -convince gentlemen that Congress have this power. It is declared by the -constitution, that its ordinances shall be the supreme law of the land. -If the constitution is the supreme law of the land, every part of it -must partake of this supremacy; consequently, every general declaration -it contains is the supreme law. But then these general declarations -cannot be carried into effect, without particular regulations adapted to -the circumstances. These particular regulations are to be made by -Congress, who, by the constitution, have power to make all laws -necessary or proper to carry the declarations of the constitution into -effect. The constitution likewise declares, that the members of the -State Legislatures, and all officers, executive and judicial, shall take -an oath to support the constitution. This declaration is general, and it -lies with the supreme Legislature to detail and regulate it. The law is -to supply the necessary means of executing the principle laid down; for -how can it be carried into effect in any other manner? This explanation, -I trust, convinces gentlemen that the power of enacting such a law -exists in Congress. But whether it is good policy or not to do it, -depends upon a variety of circumstances; for my own part, I think it -prudent to make the necessary regulations for carrying into effect this -part of the constitution. - -Mr. SYLVESTER.--I am an advocate for supporting the dignity of the -House, and to me it appears somewhat inconsistent that we should change -our sentiments in order to conform to the amendment of the Senate, -without knowing the reason upon which they have founded the proposed -measure. No doubt but sufficient reasons have occurred to them, but none -have appeared to this House. If we are to follow the Senate in all the -alterations they propose, without hearing reasons to induce a change, -our time in deliberation is taken up unnecessarily. With respect to any -member of this House who has not taken the oath, I concur that they are -to pay obedience to what the authority of the Legislature may order on -this head. Nay, I am equally clear that the power to regulate the -members of the State Governments in taking the oath, is either lodged -with the Congress of the United States, or nowhere. But, it appears to -me, that the State Legislatures have a concurrent power with Congress in -this regulation, for the officers of the General Government and State -Governments are called upon in the same manner: "The Senators and -Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State -Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the -United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath, or -affirmation, to support the constitution." These are the words of that -instrument. The question, then, is reduced to its expediency, whether -it is good policy to exercise the power or not? I am afraid, Mr. -Speaker, if we exercise this power, it may be considered an interference -with the State Governments. I would rather leave them to their -discretion, trusting they would come forward and take the oath; it is -unnecessary for us to intermeddle, if they will conform to what is -directed by the constitution. It appears to me most prudent, that, till -we see a disposition in the State Governments to neglect this duty, we -do not, by law, oblige them to perform it. I wish the Government to go -on gradually in administering the constitution, and not give umbrage -even to its enemies, by a compulsory act, when there appears no -necessity for it. - -I could not concur in the amendment proposed by the Senate, even if I -considered it not inconsistent in the House to adopt a measure they had -previously rejected, unless some good reasons were offered to show its -propriety; not but if I have been mistaken, I am always ready to retract -my error, upon better information. - -Mr. SHERMAN was not afraid of being charged with inconsistency. He had -voted against a similar clause when the bill was before the House, but -he was convinced now of its propriety; he thought it more eligible to -have a general provision for taking the oath, than particular ones. It -also appeared necessary to point out the oath itself, as well as the -time and manner of taking it. No other Legislature is competent to all -these purposes; but, if they were, there is a propriety in the supreme -Legislature's doing it. At the same time, if the State Legislatures take -it up, it cannot operate disagreeably upon them, to find all their -neighboring States obliged to join them in supporting a measure they -approve. What a State Legislature may do, will be good as far as it -goes; on the same principle, the constitution will apply to each -individual of the State officers--they may go, without the direction of -the State Legislature, to a justice, and take the oath voluntarily. -This, I suppose, would be binding upon them. But this is not -satisfactory; the Government ought to know that the oath has been -properly taken, and this can only be done by a general regulation. If it -is in the discretion of the State Legislatures to make laws to carry the -declaration of the constitution into execution, they have the power of -refusing, and may avoid the positive injunctions of the constitution. As -our power in this particular extends over the whole Union, it is most -proper for us to take the subject up, and make the proper provision for -carrying it into execution, according to the intention of the -constitution. - -Mr. BOUDINOT wished to remove the gentleman's objections arising from -inconsistency. The clause that was rejected by the Committee of the -Whole on this bill, contained a penalty for the neglect of taking the -oath as prescribed; but the amendment of the Senate was not -objectionable on that account, because it contained no such provision. - -As to the policy or expediency of the messure, he entertained not the -least doubt respecting it. The constitution said only that the officers -of Government should be bound by oath, leaving to Congress to say what -oath. In short it was the duty of the House, as had been well said by -the gentleman from New York, (Mr. LAWRENCE,) to detail the general -principles laid down in the constitution, and reduce them to practice. - -He would enforce the expediency of the measure with one further remark. -Several of the State Legislatures were sitting at this time, and had -expressed a wish or expectation that such a regulation would be made by -the General Government; if from principles of false policy the measure -did not take place, the State Legislatures might neglect it also, and it -was well known that their officers cannot act without it; hence the -legality of their acts may be called in question, and give cause to a -great deal of uneasiness and confusion. - -The question on concurring with the Senate in their amendments to the -bill was carried, with an amendment, that the members of the State -Legislatures be directed to take the oath at their next session -respectively. - -The bill was, by order of the House, returned to the Senate as amended. - - -THURSDAY, May 7. - -Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, from the committee appointed to wait on -the President of the United States, to know when it will be convenient -for him to receive the address of this House, reported: - -That the committee had, according to order, waited on the President, and -that he signified to them that it would be convenient to him to receive -the said address at 12 o'clock on Friday, at such place as the House -shall be pleased to appoint: Whereupon, - - _Resolved_, That as the Chamber designed for the - President's receiving the respective Houses is not yet - prepared, this House will wait on the President to present - their address, in the room adjacent to the Representatives' - Chamber. - -_Duties on Tonnage._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of -the Whole on the duty on tonnage. The proposition was to lay a duty of -fifty cents per ton, on all vessels belonging wholly or in part to the -subjects of all other Powers. - -Mr. MADISON moved to reduce it to forty cents, and at the end of the -year 1790, to increase it to seventy-five cents. He was satisfied to go -as far as seventy-five, because he expected, under such encouragement, a -sufficient number of vessels for the whole commerce of America might be -constructed. If he was not too sanguine in this expectation, the measure -would be both safe and expedient. - -Mr. SMITH, (of Maryland.)--Both in Virginia and Maryland, British ships -pay a higher duty than what is proposed; yet they continue to carry on -an extensive trade in those States, which, in my opinion, proves those -sums to be too low. American shipping derives considerable advantages -from the regulations made in this respect by those two States. If that -protection is withdrawn from them by the General Government, it will -subject our commerce to very great inconveniences and absolute distress. -I shall therefore be opposed to the reduction. - -Mr. AMES.--The gentlemen from the southward, who suppose their States -most likely to be affected by a discrimination in the tonnage duty, have -concluded their arguments with a candor, which I conceive does honor to -their patriotism. They declare themselves willing to encourage American -shipping and commerce, though they do not join with us in the sum we -think necessary to be laid on foreign tonnage to accomplish so important -an object. If sufficient encouragement is given, and by our regulation -American vessels are put on a footing with foreigners, I think we may -flatter ourselves with the prospect of seeing our navigation immediately -flourish. We have reason to expect a very considerable addition to our -shipping in the course of one year. Experience has convinced us, that -25,000 tons can be built within double that period, by the town of -Boston alone. The other ports in Massachusetts can furnish 37,000 tons, -New Hampshire a considerable quantity, and if the other States furnish -their proportion, we shall soon find ourselves independent of European -nations for the transportation of our products. If forty cents at -present, and the seventy-five cents in expectation, are thought a -sufficient encouragement for the purpose, I shall not object to the -motion. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS.--If it is intended to increase the duty at the -expiration of two years, it is certainly proper to reduce it in the -interim; but I very much question such policy. The business of -ship-building, I conceive, stands at this moment in want of the greatest -encouragement in our power to give. If sufficient encouragement is -given, at this time, to produce a quantity of shipping adequate to the -demand, when we once are in possession of them, the business will stand -in need of no further encouragement. If the citizens of the United -States were now in possession of a sufficient quantity of shipping, and -had the ability to employ them, I conceive they would not stand in need -of any encouragement whatever. But this is not the case, and therefore -an encouragement is requisite. At the conclusion of the last war we were -left without shipping, and from our inability to carry on commerce, by -reason of the oppression we were subjected to by foreign powers, the -building of vessels has made but slow progress in the several States. -Hence it becomes necessary to give encouragement sufficient to induce -merchants to vest a greater proportion of their capital in this way. The -proposed encouragement is not very high, and even under it, I should not -expect a quantity of shipping would be furnished equal to the demand, in -less than four or five years. It would be brought forward by slow and -gradual degrees; they will continue, year by year, to increase them, -until the number is competent to the demand. The business of -ship-building being so relaxed, persons of that occupation have turned -to other avocations, and some sensible advantage must appear, to induce -them to return to their original profession. A proof of this is -evidenced by the situation of Philadelphia. Before the Revolution, 5,000 -tons of shipping were annually built in that city; last year, the whole -tonnage was but 1,300, so much has it declined there. If it revives from -its present languishing condition, it must be by great fostering care -and protection, and by slow and gradual degrees. It does not appear to -me, that fifty cents are more than necessary for its immediate -encouragement. Gentlemen will be pleased to recollect that it is always -in the power of Congress to increase it. - -Gentlemen will recollect, on the article of hemp, immediate -encouragement was contended for. It was not opposed by the commercial -gentlemen in this House. But without encouragement is given to building -and fitting out ships, the demand for hemp will be small; for very -little advantage will arise from exporting it: the great market must be -furnished by ourselves. Upon the whole, I conclude against the motion, -believing our ship-building to need encouragement more at this time than -it will at any subsequent period. - -Mr. JACKSON.--The gentlemen from Massachusetts have, I must own, behaved -with liberality. One is willing to reduce the duty to forty cents, -another gentleman is more liberal still--he is willing to go lower; but -not so the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and Maryland; they are actuated -by other principles. They call to my mind a passage of scripture, where -a king, by the advice of inexperienced counsellors, declared to his -people, "my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, but I will add to -your burthens." A steady pursuit of this counsel brought about the -separation of his kingdom. These gentlemen want us even to go further. -They bring forward calculations upon the moment, and pass them for -information,--the mere calculations of yesterday,--and demonstrate -thereby the propriety of their measures. They may consider some States -of less importance than others, because they do not contribute the same -quantity of revenue; but let them remember, the widow's mite is as good -as the rich man's coffers; so the mite of Georgia is equal to the -revenue of Pennsylvania. - -Mr. BURKE.--It has been observed, in the former part of the debate, that -the people of the Southern States might buy ships, if they did not -build them. There are none owned in Carolina: we are destitute both of -ships and seamen, and unable to procure them; it would be folly in us, -therefore, to burthen them with duties. Though it is true, that there -are men there who live in affluence, are rich in lands and servants, yet -I believe they are universally in debt. This may be fairly inferred from -the laws they have made to favor debtors. It would take twelve years to -enable people there to pay their State and private debts; they are -therefore very unable to sustain any new burthens, especially when their -produce is so fallen in price as not to pay the expense of cultivation. -I do not say this is to be attributed to the want of vessels to carry it -off, though there may probably be a great want in this respect; and if -there is, gentlemen tell you they are unable to make up the deficiency. -If this be the case, they ought to be contented with a moderate duty for -the present; and as my mind is strongly impressed with the importance of -encouraging the American navigation, I shall join them in doing -something that may be productive of that effect. - -Mr. MADISON.--As there is a great diversity of sentiment respecting the -policy of the duty, I am very happy to find it is not prescribed by the -geographical situation of our country. This evinces that it is merely -difference of opinion, and not difference of interest. Gentlemen of the -same State differ as much as gentlemen from the extremes of the -continent. As no objection is made to giving some encouragement, we -ought to endeavor to harmonize upon the quantum. I doubt very much if -any proposition that can now be brought forward will coincide with the -sentiments of this body more than the one that is before us. I am not -anxious to reduce the encouragement too low, nor to throw to a very -distant day the advanced rate intended by my modification of the -measure; so gentlemen need not apprehend any evil to arise from its -adoption. - -Gentlemen who are opposed to giving sufficient encouragement to -ship-building, ought to recollect an argument that was considered of -weight in the case of encouraging manufactures. It is certain that -manufactures have been reared up by the fostering care of the State -Legislatures, displayed in the shape of protecting duties; but the -people, by the adoption of this constitution, have put it out of their -power to continue them. The provision for the support of navigation, -made by the several States, ought to induce us to suppose even a higher -tonnage duty pleasing to them, at least in those States where a higher -tonnage duty has been laid. Those States not being able to continue -their encouragement, expect that we will attend to their policy, and -protect their citizens in the property they were led to acquire under -the State regulations. If we disappoint them, they will suffer more than -is consistent with good policy. I am not apprehensive that forty cents -will be so low as to occasion any discontent. - -Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--Gentlemen have endeavored to persuade -us, that a high tonnage duty will be beneficial to the Union; but I -would as soon be persuaded to throw myself out of a two-story window, as -to believe a high tonnage duty was favorable to South Carolina. -Gentlemen tell us we are in great want of shipping and a navy--that -sufficient encouragement for ship-building must be given before we can -expect it; but I think, let the encouragement be what it may, many years -will elapse before we have sufficient for the export of our commodities. -I know Massachusetts cannot furnish us, because there are adventitious -causes to prevent it. The course of the stream in which our navigation -has so long flowed, cannot be altered in a day. The debts due from the -merchants of that country to the British, will be an insuperable bar. -Suppose they should send ships to transport our produce to a foreign -market, they have no connections abroad to transact their business, no -house in a commercial line to employ in the sales. What are they to -bring back in return? They must come in ballast: and will the mere -transportation of our crop be a sufficient inducement to engage them to -come here? If they had more shipping than they wanted, we should still -labor under the same difficulty, and employ foreigners; because the -business is unchangeably in their hands, and the very moment the tonnage -duty is increased, it will be an inducement to them to raise the price -of freight. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--There have been circumstances mentioned in the course of -this debate, which I think may be useful in ascertaining whether the -proposed duty of fifty cents on tonnage be too high or not. It appears -that there is a duty in Georgia equal to 1s. 8d. sterling; in South -Carolina, 1s. 3d. besides something on goods imported in foreign -bottoms; in Virginia and Maryland it is much greater. How, then, can -gentlemen from those States contend that the proposed duty is so much -too high as to occasion the fatal consequences they foretell? When we -consider the valuable produce of the Southern States, we are led to -believe that the difference of ten cents per ton can make no material -difference in the price. Will it materially affect the price of rice or -tobacco? Neither of these articles would pay more than five cents per -cask, if the duty should be reduced. - -The duty, therefore, cannot be fairly said to be too high for the -Southern States; it is not contended to be too high for the middle ones; -it is not too high for us. - -If we consider the subject as it relates to revenue, it will form a -material object for our attention; if the duty be considered as a bounty -to the maritime States, it will be admitted that it is our interest to -increase our navigation. - -The regulation proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, to increase the -duty to seventy-five cents at the end of two years, may never take -effect; before that period arrives, a treaty may be formed with the -nation that is our great commercial rival. I am, therefore, in favor of -a permanent regulation, rather than one holding out an encouragement -that will never take place. - -Mr. JACKSON.--The gentleman last up thinks the reduction of ten cents -will not materially affect the Southern States, yet he supposes it will -injure ship-building: how it can hurt one interest by being reduced, and -not wound the other by its increase, I do not clearly understand; for my -part, I do not see the weight of such arguments. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--I consider the difference of ten cents to be too small -for contention; the arguments of the gentlemen in opposition go as much -against a duty of forty cents as against fifty. - -Mr. PAGE.--I have heard all the arguments now brought against this -measure, urged over and over again, when a tonnage duty was contended -against in the same manner in Virginia. It was then merely a trial, but -now we have the arguments resulting from experience in our favor. We -find the British shipping still crowding our ports, although the tonnage -duty is twice as great as is now proposed; and although the price of -produce has fallen within that time, yet I am persuaded it must be -attributed to other causes than this. Let the experiment be made with -firmness, and I venture to say, it will turn out the same in other -States as in ours. I acknowledge the gentlemen's arguments have weight, -but they go against any tax whatsoever being laid on tonnage. But -experience has demonstrated to us, that such a duty is attended with -advantages; it will encourage ship-building, and render us independent -for the transportation of our produce. Let, therefore, no suggestions of -the kind that have been offered deter us from pursuing, with firmness -and decision, the plan adopted by the committee. - -Mr. WADSWORTH.--If the gentleman who has brought forward this -proposition had proposed thirty cents instead of forty, I should have -agreed to the motion, because it would have destroyed the discrimination -between the vessels of nations in treaty, and those not in treaty with -us; but in every other point of view, I should be against a reduction. -Foreign vessels will be better circumstanced under a duty of fifty -cents, than American free of duty. The charges on foreign bottoms in our -ports are very small; there is not, I believe, a vessel of ours that -goes to Europe, that does not pay, in light money and other charges, -more than fifty cents per ton. - -Mr. MADISON.--The subject of discrimination is not now within our view; -it has been decided by a great majority; I think there were not more -than nine members against it. I do not mean, by the arguments that I -have urged, to prove that the increase of tonnage has a tendency to -raise the price of freight: all my object has been to quiet the -apprehensions of gentlemen who hold that opinion. I do not think it will -keep away foreign vessels from visiting us, nor increase the burthen on -our Southern commerce, so much as has been calculated; and even if it -did, the extension of our navigation would be an adequate compensation. -The price of freight before the late revolution was higher than it is at -present; perhaps it may be lower when ships are furnished in larger -quantities. - -Mr. TUCKER.--I fear the gentlemen who look for a sufficient quantity of -shipping to answer the demands of our commerce in so short a space as -two years, will find themselves deceived. I think, therefore, it would -be improper to lay a high tonnage duty, commencing at that period; if it -appears expedient, a future Legislature may give such encouragement, but -they are not bound to perform our engagement. After they have seen the -effect of the present regulation, they will be better able to judge of -what is right in this particular than we can do. I am doubtful whether -the measure would place the United States in a better or worse situation -than a duty of fifty cents; a commutation of this kind, in order to save -ten cents for two years, and admit an addition of twenty-five cents for -ever afterwards, appears a doubtful policy. At any rate, the Congress -might feel themselves, in some degree, bound to raise the duty to -seventy-five cents, when their judgments might tell them it was -inexpedient--they will then have cause to complain of our anticipation. -I should, I think, rather be in favor of fixing a certain tonnage duty -at present, and leave it to the consideration of a future Legislature, -whether to increase it or not, according to the circumstances of the -case. I think thirty cents as much as can be given, with propriety, at -this time; considering the interest of the State I have the honor to -represent, I believe it will bear harder on some States than on others, -acting partially and not generally. When I speak of the State I -represent, I would not be thought actuated by improper motives; I think -every gentleman is bound to support, in a proper manner, the interest he -is well acquainted with, and believes to be conducive to the general -welfare. A great deal has been said respecting the duties that have been -laid on tonnage in the Southern States. I begged the attention of the -House, on a former occasion, to a striking difference there is in duties -imposed by the State, for its own particular advantage, and what are -about to be laid for the benefit of the United States. Every duty -imposed, I consider as a tax on the inhabitants of South Carolina. If -that tax is to bear harder on them than on other States, I pronounce it -unequal and unjust. I consider the tax on tonnage in this light; but as -I am willing to give encouragement to our navigation, so I shall not -oppose a moderate duty on foreign vessels; as I also conceive a -discrimination proper between those nations in alliance with us and -those with whom we have no treaties subsisting, I am disposed to admit a -larger sum than thirty cents: I would propose thirty-five, upon the -express condition of reducing the duty already agreed to, to twenty or -twenty-five, when a bill shall come forward founded upon the principles -now agreed to. - -The question was here put on Mr. MADISON's motion and lost. - -The House then decided upon the original proposition, which being agreed -to, it was - - _Resolved_, That there ought to be levied on all vessels - entered or cleared in the United States, the duties - following, to wit: - - On all vessels built within the United States, and - belonging wholly to citizens thereof, at the rate of nine - cents per ton. - - On all vessels not built within the United States, but now - belonging wholly to citizens thereof, at the rate of six - cents per ton. - - On all vessels belonging wholly to the subjects of Powers - with whom the United States have formed treaties, or partly - to the subjects of such Powers, and partly to citizens of - the said States, at the rate of thirty cents per ton. - - On all vessels belonging wholly or in part to subjects of - other Powers, at the rate of fifty cents per ton. - - _Provided_, That no vessel built within the United States, - and belonging to a citizen or citizens thereof, whilst - employed in the coasting trade, or in the fisheries, shall - pay tonnage more than once in any one year; nor shall any - ship or vessel built within the United States pay tonnage - on her first voyage. - - _Provided also_, That no vessel be employed in the - transportation of the produce or manufactures of the United - States or any of them, coastwise, except such vessels shall - be built within the United States, and the property of a - citizen or citizens thereof. - -The same was, on a question put thereupon, agreed to by the House. - -_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said -resolution, and that Mr. WADSWORTH, Mr. HEISTER, and Mr. SENEY, do -prepare and bring in the same.[22] - - -FRIDAY, May 8. - -The Speaker, attended by the members of the House, withdrew to the room -adjoining the Representatives' Chamber, and there presented to the -President of the United States the address agreed to on Tuesday last, to -which he returned the following answer: - - GENTLEMEN: - - Your very affectionate address produces emotions which I - know not how to express. I feel that my past endeavors in - the service of my country are far overpaid by its goodness; - and I fear much that my future ones may not fulfil your - kind anticipation. All that I can promise is, that they - will be invariably directed by an honest and an ardent - zeal; of this resource my heart assures me. For all - beyond, I rely on the wisdom and patriotism of those with - whom I am to co-operate, and a continuance of the blessings - of Heaven on our beloved country. - -The Speaker and members being returned into the House: - -Mr. GERRY, from the committee appointed, presented, according to order, -a bill for collecting duties on goods, wares, and merchandises imported -into the United States; and the same was received and read the first -time. - -_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do procure one hundred copies of -the said bill to be printed for the use of the members of this House. - -On motion, - -_Ordered_, That the committee appointed on the 29th ultimo, to report an -estimate of the supplies requisite for the present year, and of the net -produce of the impost, as agreed to by the House, be authorized and -instructed to collect early and authentic statements of the particular -articles of foreign produce and manufactures annually imported into, and -of all the articles exported from, the several States, and the value of -such imports and exports; also, the number of vessels, both foreign and -domestic, entered and cleared during that time, specifying their -tonnage, and the nations to which they respectively belong; specifying, -also, the exact numbers of each particular description of vessels of -each nation, and the amount of tonnage of each particular vessel. - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a -Committee of the whole House on the bill for laying a duty on goods, -wares, and merchandises imported into the United States. - -Mr. PAGE in the chair. - -Mr. TUCKER.--As I am desirous of beginning with moderate duties, I deem -it proper, at this stage of the business, to offer my reasons in support -of this opinion, that if it be the opinion of the committee, we may go -uniformly through the list, and make the necessary reduction. I am -opposed to high duties, particularly for two reasons: First, because -they will tend to introduce and establish a system of smuggling; and, -Secondly, because they tend to the oppression of certain citizens and -States, in order to promote the benefit of other States and other -classes of citizens. I cannot say I have a peculiar aversion to a high -duty on distilled spirits; I may, therefore, be suspected of -inconsistency in moving to reduce it; but I do it on the principle of a -general reduction. If I do not succeed on the first article, I shall -despair of succeeding on the others. - -It appears to me that if we lay high duties on the importation of goods, -a system of smuggling will be adopted before we can possibly make the -necessary provision to prevent it. I take it, sir, that proper -regulations respecting the collection is all our security against -illicit trade. From a variety of circumstances, it appears to me, we -shall not only be a long time in completing such a system, but, for want -of experience, many of the regulations will be of a dubious propriety. -Gentlemen will recollect we have an extensive sea-coast, accessible at a -thousand points, and upon all this coast there are but few custom-houses -where officers can be stationed to guard the collection of the duties; -therefore, we labor under considerably greater disadvantages than a -thicker settled country is liable to. I apprehend, if we consider the -present state of our population, we shall conclude it impracticable to -establish a sufficient number of custom-houses on those parts of the -coast most assailable, to render us perfectly secure in the collection -of our duties. If it were practicable, the expense would be a formidable -objection; it would require more revenue to support such a system than -all we shall derive from the impost. But we know in Great Britain where -the duties are high, no expense is spared in the collection, yet -smuggling is carried on to a very considerable amount; the risk run by -this class of people is very great, the penalties are very severe, and -the vigilance of the officers renders detection not very improbable. As -this is the case, under the administration of a very powerful -Government, I apprehend ours, which is only in its infancy, will be -unable to prevent it taking place, otherwise than by a system of -moderate duties. If we begin with laying them high, there will be an -immediate temptation to engage in a system of smuggling, a system of -which may soon be formed, so as to render our future efforts -ineffectual; it is better to avoid the temptation, than to punish the -evil. A man that is disposed to trade fairly, will be brought under the -necessity of falling into the same practice, or giving up his business; -for the higher the duty, the greater the advantage the smuggler has over -the fair trader, being compelled by necessity to engage in a contraband -trade, or to forego the means of a livelihood. Smuggling will be no -longer dishonorable, no longer difficult, and none will be found -opposing the practice; repeated efforts to corrupt will be successful -among even the officers of your customs; they at first may resist the -temptation, but when they find the practice general, their vigilance -will wink at a contraband trade, and smuggling will be considered as a -matter of course. They will consider the reward given them for being out -of the way as a benefit to which they are entitled. For these reasons, I -shall be against a system of high duties, and because I fear there is -danger of a system of smuggling being introduced before proper -arrangements are made to prevent it; or if we had time to make such -arrangements, they must inevitably be ineffectual. - -I would observe further, that a high duty not only tends to the -encouragement of smuggling, but it likewise raises, in my mind, a -scruple respecting the allowance of a drawback, as I conceive every -drawback becomes an additional encouragement to smuggling. In many -instances, I fear it may be found, that the drawback will amount to more -than all the duties paid in the States which are entitled to it. -Considering the situation of the States of North Carolina and Rhode -Island, which are not in the Union, their contiguity to the other States -will increase the facility with which smuggling can be carried on; it -will be easy to import articles from Europe and the West Indies into -their ports, and send them by land, or even water to the adjacent -States. When these are smuggled into the United States, they may be -re-exported and entitled to receive a drawback, although the revenue was -not collected upon the importation. If we agree to moderate duties it -will be much easier to regulate our system on this head; if our revenue -is found not to be quite so productive as gentlemen calculate upon a -system of higher duties, which, by the by, appears to me to be very -unlikely, we shall be better able to judge what we can do after a trial, -than we can possibly at present; at any rate, it will be but a small -loss; whereas, by a large scale, we may throw the whole Union into -confusion, and there will be no remedy by which we can recover what we -have now in our power; for a reduction of duties, when they are once -laid, is productive of the most serious consequences. Having, therefore, -a strong impression upon my mind, that we hazard a great deal in -imposing high duties in the first instance, I should not have been -satisfied with having done my duty, if I had not stated my doubts and -difficulties to the committee; but having done this, I shall content -myself with their decision, be it what it may. - -On motion, the further reading of the bill was postponed--adjourned. - - -SATURDAY, May 9. - -JEREMIAH VAN RENSSELAER, from New York, appeared and took his seat. - -The following communications were received from the Senate by Mr. Otis, -their Secretary: - -Mr. SPEAKER: The Senate have disagreed to the report of a committee -appointed to determine what style or titles it will be proper to annex -to the office of President and Vice President of the United States, if -any other than those given in the constitution; and have appointed a -committee to consider and report under what title it will be proper for -the President of the United States in future to be addressed, and confer -thereon with such committee as this House may appoint for that purpose. -The Senate have also appointed a committee to view and report how the -rooms in the City Hall shall be appropriated, and to confer with any -committee this House may appoint for that purpose. - - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a -Committee of the whole House on the bill for laying a duty on goods, -wares, and merchandises imported into the United States. Mr. PAGE in the -chair. - -Mr. TUCKER.--The observations I made yesterday were intended to apply -generally against a system of high duties. As to the particular article -of spirits, I have no objection to a high duty being laid upon it, -provided it can be strictly collected; for I do not wish to give -encouragement to the consumption of that article, though, I fear, no -duty we can lay will tend much to discourage it. I thought that if it -was the general opinion of the House to lessen the duties, it would be a -saving of time to discuss it on a motion to reduce the first article. I -repeat the observation, that high duties are improper, because they are -impolitic, and likely to defeat the object of revenue: less will be -collected on them than on moderate ones. If it be considered as an -encouragement to manufactures to lay heavy duties on enumerated -articles, it is a tax on one part for the emolument of another. Five per -cent. upon all articles imported would raise a considerable revenue, and -be a sufficient encouragement to manufactures, especially if we add to -this five per cent. the expense of freight and other charges of -importation on foreign goods. The five per cent. in the bill is to be -collected on the value of the goods at the time and place of -importation; the value of goods within the United States is twenty-five -per cent. more than they cost in Europe; adding this therefore to the -other advantages, and it will be a considerable encouragement; but, -besides all this, there are many articles made here as cheap, and -cheaper than they can be imported. Gentlemen, who have given us this -information, know the fact to be so in their respective States; in them, -therefore, the operation of the measure would be just and politic, but -it does not apply with the same force as it respects South Carolina and -some other States. Although in Boston and Philadelphia they can -manufacture certain wares cheaper than they can import them, yet they -are not brought at the same price to Charleston: hence the operation is -unequal and a partial tax upon us. Another thing to be considered is, -even if these articles could be furnished us at home as cheap as we get -them from abroad, whether we should have equal advantages? If a cargo of -nails were to be sent to Carolina, I would be glad to know how we are to -purchase it? Would the makers of shoes be content to go there and retail -them? If they would, they might be brought there; but I apprehend, if -they have not established connections in that country, they could never -be disposed of. Can they expect the planters to come in a body, and take -off their goods upon their arrival? It is not even expected that they -could; it must be left to them to judge, whether they do not purchase -them in a better way, by taking them upon credit, and paying for them in -their crop. Gentlemen will not pretend to say that we do not know our -own interest, and therefore they will teach us. These reasons will not -go down with the people; they will take to themselves the right of -judging what is most conducive to their interests. Gentlemen cannot -argue from the fact, that we do not consume the articles made within -their States, as readily and willingly, as those imported from abroad, -merely because we do not wish to encourage them. Facts prove the direct -contrary: we have shown a disposition to encourage articles from their -States which can be made in our State in great abundance. I will mention -a few of them, although it may appear disgraceful for South Carolina to -take from any country what she can furnish herself. We have imported to -the city of Charleston vegetables for table use, which we can raise as -well as any part of the world; yet no complaint was made by the -agricultural interest of that State, that we imported foreign -productions to their prejudice; no duty was imposed to discourage the -use of them; all we considered was, whether they came cheaper when -brought from abroad than when raised at home, concluding the cheapest to -be the best. - -On the same principles that are now urged, our citizens might have -contended that we should impose a duty on all articles which could be -produced at home. No imposition on the importation was laid in order to -encourage the productions of our country; the same principle ought to -have induced us to lay a duty on the importation of flour. We make but -little of that; our constituents consume rice in place of it. It might -have been said that a heavy duty should have been laid in order to -prevent the interference with our staple commodity. The planters should -have said, we will compel you to eat rice, and after being some time in -the habit you will find you will like it as well as we; indeed, this -argument might be extended to a measure calculated to oblige the other -States to use rice in their daily food. It might be said, that it was -necessary in order to give encouragement to the productions of the -Southern States, but I believe such arguments would have had no weight -if they had been used; yet they are similar to what have been brought -forward by gentlemen for the encouragement of domestic manufactures. - -Mr. Speaker, if gentlemen are content with moderate duties, we are -willing to agree to them and give every reasonable encouragement in our -power, but we cannot consent to very great oppression. I once more wish -that gentlemen will consider great duties as imposing a heavier burthen -upon the Southern States, as they import more, the other less; and the -sum we pay towards the revenue must be in proportion to our importation. -I therefore move, in order to begin with the first article, that -distilled spirits be reduced six cents per gallon. - -Mr. JACKSON seconded this motion, and would assign his reasons for it, -but they had been so fully stated by the honorable mover. - -Mr. AMES.--I wish the committee may consider, with the attention the -subject demands, whether the duties are too high or not? It is hardly -possible, I own, to contemplate this subject as a practical question. -We shall find it necessary to consider attentively, before we proceed -any further, what the objects of our Government are; and, having -discovered them, we are to consider whether the proposed measure will -answer the purposes intended. I believe in every point of view that we -can possibly consider it, the subject of revenue will be thought to be -one of the primary objects to which the power of Government extends. It -has long been apprehended, that an ill administration of the new -constitution was more to be feared, as inimical to the liberties of the -people, than any hostility from the principles of the constitution. Of -all the operations of Government, those which concern taxation are the -most delicate as well as the most important. This observation applies to -all governments. Revenue is the soul of Government, and if such a soul -had not been breathed into our body politic it would have been a -lifeless carcass, fit only to be buried. I would wish this soul might be -actuated by rational principles, that, in establishing a revenue system, -we might go on a superior principle to that which has heretofore been -the governing principle in the United States; that we might consider -what was most adequate to the object. The nature of the revenue system -in this Government is to the last degree important; for want of the -soul, the late Government was found utterly incapable of invigorating -and protecting industry, or securing the Union; therefore these seem to -be the great objects which we are to accomplish. I consider the present -question as a direct application to the principles of the constitution; -it will either support or destroy them. If the revenue system should -fall with oppressive weight on the people, if it shall injure some in -their dearest interests, it will shake the foundation of the Government. -However the newspapers may stand your friends, and trumpet forth -panegyrics on the new constitution, if your administration does not give -satisfaction, you will find all ineffectual that they can do, whilst the -people are against you. This being admitted, the Government will not -push their regulations too far; they will consider the weaknesses and -prejudices of the individual members of the Union. When they lay a tax, -they will consider how far it is agreeable to them, and how far the -measure is wise in itself. If it is said the article to be taxed is a -luxury, and the Government is zealous to correct the vice, they will be -careful they do not do it in too severe a manner; the principle would be -capable of great expansion: all the enjoyments of social life are -luxuries, and, as objects of revenue, we ought to set a price on the -enjoyment, without suppressing their use altogether. Neither ought we to -consider what the article in this point of view is able to pay, so much -as what we may reasonably expect to collect from it. - -Mr. MADISON.--The right understanding of this subject is of great -importance. The discussion has been drawn out to a very considerable -length on former occasions. The chain of ideas on which the subject is -suspended, is not very long, nor consists of many links. The present -constitution was framed to supply the defects of the one that has -preceded it. The great and material defects of it are well known to have -arisen from its inability to provide for the demands of justice and -security of the Union. To supply those defects, we are bound to fulfil -the public engagements; expectation is anxiously waiting the result of -our deliberations; it cannot be satisfied without a sufficient revenue -to accomplish its purposes. We cannot obtain the money any other way but -by taxation. Among the various objects of this nature, an impost on -merchandise imported is preferable to all others, and among the long -list of articles included in the bill, there is not one more proper for -the purpose than the article under consideration. The public sentiment -has strongly pointed it out as an object of revenue. I conceive, -therefore, that it will be our duty to draw from this source all the -money that it is capable of yielding. I am sure that it will not exceed -our wants, nor extend to the injury of our commerce. How far the powers -of Government are capable of going on this occasion, is matter of -opinion; we have had no direct experiment of what can be done under the -energy and popularity of the new system; we must recur to other sources -for information, and then, unless the circumstances are alike, the -comparison may not be true. We have been referred to the experience of -other nations; if that is to guide us on this subject, I am sure we -shall find precedents for going much farther than is now proposed. If I -do not mistake the calculations that I have seen of duties on -importation, they amount to more on an average than fifteen per cent.; -the duty on ardent spirits in all nations exceeds what is in -contemplation to be laid in the United States. I am sensible that the -means which are used by those nations to insure the collection, would be -odious and improper in this country; but I believe the means which this -country is capable of using, without exciting complaint or incurring too -much expense, would be as adequate to secure a duty of fifteen per cent. -as the powers of any other nation could be to obtain ninety or one -hundred per cent. I pay great respect to the opinions of mercantile -gentlemen, and am willing to concede much to them, so far as their -opinions are regulated by experience; but if I am to be guided by this -information, it will not lead me to agree to the reduction of the duties -in the manner contended for. It is said, that if we reduce at all, we -must go through the whole. Now I doubt whether the duty on the article -of rum exceeds that proportion which pervades the long list before us. -It does not amount to more than thirty per cent., while some other -articles stand at forty; some articles again that are not enumerated, -but which fall within the general mass at five per cent., are more -likely to be introduced clandestinely than this article, if it stood at -fifty per cent. I am sure, if we reduce the whole system in the manner -now proposed, all the duty we shall be able to collect will be very -incompetent to what the public necessities demand. We must turn our -eyes, then, to some other source that will fill up the deficiency. There -are but two objects to which in this dilemma we can have -recourse--direct taxation and excises. Direct taxation is not -contemplated by any gentleman on this floor, nor are our constituents -prepared for such a system of revenue; they expect it will not be -applied to, until it is found that sufficient funds cannot be obtained -in any other way. Excises would give particular disgust in some States, -therefore gentlemen will not make up the deficiency from that quarter. I -think, upon the whole, it is better to try what will be produced by a -plan which is favored by the public sentiment. This will give a support -to our laws equal to the greatest energy of a strong execution. The -citizens of America know that their individual interest is connected -with the public. We shall then have the strong motive of interest acting -in favor of the Government in a peculiar manner. But I am not inclined -to trust too much to this security. I would take in the aid of the best -regulations in our power to provide; these acting in concert, would give -a moral certainty to the faithful collection of the revenue. But if -gentlemen, notwithstanding, will persist in contending against such a -system, and cannot offer us a substitute, we must fail of the primary -object for which the Government was created. If upon experience we find -that the duties cannot be safely collected, it may be proper to reduce -them; but if we set them too low in the first instance, and they do not -yield a sufficiency to answer the just demands of the public creditors -and the expenses of Government, the public reputation must suffer. - -Mr. BLAND.--I join with the gentlemen who are disposed to lower the -duties. Although I feel the necessity we are under of raising revenue as -much as any other gentleman possibly can, yet I think we ought to -deliberate fully upon the means before we adopt them. It is -demonstrable, nay it is self-evident, that laying high duties, in the -first instance, will beget smuggling, and I fear our regulations, -respecting the collection, will prove the impracticability of defeating -the practice. But when we come to consider the subject in another point -of view, I trust such a system will be found unnecessary. The enumerated -articles in this bill are very numerous; they are taxed from fifty per -cent. downwards; the general mass pays five per cent. The calculations -made by the late Congress, who no doubt maturely considered the subject, -found a list of eight articles only, and those at one-fourth or -one-fifth of the rate now proposed, would produce a revenue of nine -hundred and fifteen thousand six hundred and fifty-six dollars annually. - -When we add to this calculation a circumstance of notoriety, the -increase of our importation, we shall find that we levy, or mean to -levy, greater sums than the public necessities require. There will not -be found specie enough within the United States to pay the duties: four -times the rate of what the former Congress recommended, will produce -three millions six hundred thousand dollars. The enumeration is four -times as great also; hence we may infer, that the amount will reach -thirteen or fourteen millions. At least we shall be convinced that we -are upon too high a scale. But where is the necessity of raising the -impost to this degree? There are other means of revenue, and such as -will not give disgust. We have already proposed a duty on tonnage; there -is the post-office, and some other things which the ingenuity of -Government can devise and is entitled to, for the purpose of revenue; if -it is therefore unnecessary to levy such oppressive taxes, what other -pretext can be set up for adopting the system? Independent of every -other consideration, this ought to induce us to lower them. But there -are other and weighty considerations; but as they have been well urged -by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. AMES,) I shall not touch upon -them. It is said, that it is merely matter of opinion whether they are -too high or not; if so, let us be careful not to venture too far on such -ground. It will be much better to reduce it in the manner proposed by -the gentleman from South Carolina, and increase it hereafter, than -strain the measure too high at present. - -Mr. SHERMAN.--After this subject had been debated in a Committee of the -Whole, and then in the House upon the report, and every argument that -could be thought of had been urged, both on the general and particular -amount of the duties proposed, and the probable effects of a deduction, -I did not expect to have heard the same debate take place again. -Gentlemen have a large field to display their abilities in, but I do not -think it contains any new matter that will induce a single gentleman to -alter his opinion on the subject. The great object is to raise a sum of -money adequate to supply our wants; and let us dispute as we will about -the mode, the fact is it must be raised. The people have sent their -representatives here for this purpose; it is for their benefit that we -raise the money, and not for any peculiar advantage to ourselves; the -objects are to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare of -the community. The first of these objects I take to be, that we pay our -debts. There are very many meritorious characters who furnished us with -essentials in the hour of imminent danger, who, from the imbecility of -our former Government, have not been able to get even the interest of -what they loaned us. I believe it is the first wish of the people -throughout the United States to do justice to the public creditors, and -to do it in such a manner, that each may contribute an equal part -according to his abilities. We have very considerable arrearages due on -this account, upon not only the domestic but foreign debt; there are -several instalments not yet discharged, and considerable of the interest -not yet paid. No statement can be made of the expenses of Government, so -as to ascertain what quantity of revenue will be demanded on that head, -but saying that they will be much the same under this Government as the -former, and we shall have occasion for a very considerable sum to defray -the expenses. I believe we are not able to make a very accurate -calculation of what the system, proposed in the bill, will yield. The -late Congress contemplated a million of dollars from this source, which, -in aid of the requisition, they supposed sufficient for the purpose of -paying the instalments of the national debt and interest; but that sum -alone will now be found very short of what is wanted without the aid of -direct taxes. It is very material that we lay the burthen as equal as -possible, in whatever mode we pursue to obtain revenue: a great deal of -care has been taken in distributing the proportion with equity; I -apprehend, therefore, that we shall not be able to make it much more -equitable by any alteration than it is at present. I think, also, that -the people will pay more freely a duty of this nature than they will in -direct taxes. If gentlemen prevail in getting the duties lowered to what -the late Congress proposed, they will find themselves obliged to have -recourse to direct taxation for a million and a half, or two millions of -dollars. It then only remains for us to consider, whether it will be -more agreeable to the people to reduce the impost in this manner, and -raise the deficiency by direct taxes. If these duties are to be -considered as a tax on the trading part of the community alone, they are -improper; but this I believe is not the case; the consumer pays them -eventually, and they pay no more than they choose, because they have it -in their power to determine the quantity of taxable articles they will -use. A tax left to be paid at discretion must be more agreeable than any -other. The merchant considers that part of his capital applied to the -payment of the duties the same as if employed in trade, and gets the -same profit upon it as on the original cost of the commodity. - -Mr. WHITE.--When this system first came before the committee, I was -opposed to enter into an enumeration, because I supposed much time would -be taken up in the discussion, which would be an absolute loss of -revenue, perhaps to a greater amount than the difference between the -duties of such a system and the one proposed by the late Congress; but -as it was thought proper by the committee to proceed in the way that we -have done, it would be presumption in me to say, that the duty on every -article has been perfectly digested and properly laid, but I believe -every article stands as well as can be upon the information we are in -possession of. I believe very few, if any, of the articles can be -disapproved of. - -Mr. AMES.--The gentleman from Pennsylvania set out with informing us -that nothing new had or could be offered on the subject, yet you found, -Mr. Chairman, the gentleman had a good deal to say, which I thought new -and much to the purpose. As to applying the observation to myself, in -common with the advocates for low duties, I shall decline it, only -noting that the long discussion which the subject has had, would -restrain me from rising on this occasion, more than any remarks of the -nature made by the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and Connecticut; but I am -actuated by higher motives than a regard to my own feelings, otherwise I -should come reluctantly forward to press arguments which the committee -may be fatigued with listening to. But I feel such strong impressions on -my mind, with regard to the effects our impost law is likely to produce, -that I cannot pass it over with a silent vote. I must admonish -gentlemen, that the events which may result from our present measures -are of the most alarming nature. When I was up before, I endeavored to -show the degree of power the Government could exercise without being -charged with an ill administration. I shall now proceed briefly to -consider the arguments used in reply to what has been advanced by the -advocates for moderate duties. I believe it is a good rule to judge of -the strength of a cause by the arguments used to defend it; and here I -must take the liberty of saying, that the gentlemen on the other side of -the question have adduced not one to support their opinion that has -carried conviction to my mind. I consider that, by a decision of this -question, the good which the new Government is expected to produce may -be rendered problematical. Though I am fully impressed with the -necessity there is for revenue to supply the public expenses, yet I -cannot believe we are likely to obtain more by heavy duties than by -temperate ones, and it is to this point that my arguments tend. I do not -believe that in either case we shall procure fully sufficient to supply -the public demands. If we have to procure 8,000,000 dollars, I venture -to say, not near the half could be raised by an impost system; but -admitting that it could by a high scale of duties for the first year, it -could not be done in the subsequent ones. Now I regard this as a -permanent system of revenue, rather than a productive one; if it is laid -high, you will find your collection annually diminish. Now, will any -Government take such measures in gathering in its harvest, as to ruin -the soil? Will they rack-rent their tenants in such a manner as to -deprive them of the means of improving the estate? Such can never be the -policy of this enlightened country. We know, from the fundamental -principles of republics, that public opinion gives the tone to every -action of the Government--the laws ought to correspond with the habits -and manners, nay, I may almost add, wishes of the people. Well, Mr. -Chairman, we are told a tax upon rum is popular; I will agree with the -gentlemen; but still a high duty will induce people to run it, and -though the consumer may pay the tax without complaining, yet it will go -into the pockets of individuals who defraud your revenue. Gentlemen have -complained that we do not offer a substitute for what we find fault -with. I will endeavor to explain a system I would place in the room of -this. I would reduce the duties generally so low as to hold out no -encouragement to smuggling; in this case, it is more than probable, the -amount of the impost, at the end of one year, would exceed the -collection under the present rate. By giving this proof of moderation -and wisdom, we should obtain the public favor and confidence; the -Government would be acquiring strength, its movements would be more -certain, and we could in every subsequent year extend the system, and -make the whole productive; then it would be in the power of Government, -by aids, to improve our agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. Our -imports are now very great; by the increase of our commerce, we shall -probably find our revenue produce twice as much seven years hence as it -can be expected to do at present. - -Mr. MADISON.--Let us compare the probable amount of the revenue proposed -to be raised by this system, with what is raised in Great Britain, and -we shall be apt to infer that they are not so oppressive as gentlemen -seem to insinuate. Taking the highest estimate that I have heard -mentioned, and it will not produce three millions of dollars. The -population of the United States exceeds three millions of souls, hence -the tax does not amount to one dollar per head. Great Britain, on the -highest estimation, does not contain eight millions of inhabitants, and -has an annual revenue to provide of thirteen millions sterling. It is -true, she has recourse to other means besides an impost for the purpose -of obtaining such a revenue; but those other means are certainly more -objectionable in that country, and would be much more so here. Each -individual of that kingdom pays eight times as much as is required by -the United States; now, where is the propriety of making a comparison -between them? - -Mr. BALDWIN asked if the Government of the United States of America was -four or five times worse to be administered than the Governments in -Europe? Whether the public opinion was four or five times more -unfavorable to such an administration? If these questions are answered -in the affirmative, then the inferences which gentlemen have drawn, of -the impracticability of collecting the duties laid in the bill, are -just. But this is not allowing the General Government the common chance -of executing its laws. If it were the worst Government on earth, it -might be allowed a chance of doing one quarter of what others perform. -If we find by experience, that we are too weak to execute a system which -is so much easier than other nations have adopted, it may be proper to -alter it. We shall be better able to judge how far we are likely to -succeed, when the bill for the collection of the revenue is brought -forward. Such a bill is now in the hands of a committee, and it is to -be hoped, when they report it, it will be found sufficient to insure the -collection; till then, it will be best to continue the rate as it -stands. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--When we consider the arguments of gentlemen on both sides -of this question, we shall find they do not differ so much as, on a -superficial view, gentlemen may be led to imagine. It is agreed, that a -revenue must be obtained adequate to our wants; but some gentlemen think -we shall not receive a greater sum, because we lay a high duty; in this -opinion I am with them. I think the present is a favorable time to lay -an impost duty, and expect very considerable aid from the public spirit; -but I am in favor of a low duty, because I would do nothing to check -that spirit. If we lay high duties, and a man finds smuggling the most -profitable business he can follow, we shall have to contend with private -interest. If we lay a light duty of thirty or forty per cent., the -temptation will be too strong for resistance, and the sum collected may -not amount to ten per cent. on the whole importation; whereas, if we lay -twenty or fifteen per cent. the whole may probably be collected, and the -treasury be better filled, because it does not hold out so strong an -inducement to evade the payment of the duties. - -Another objection has been stated, which is of great weight: a system of -high duties will necessarily engage us in a system of drawbacks. If we -are forced into this measure, it will be a great injury to the revenue. - -We ought also to consider the inconvenience to which high duties will -subject our merchants. It is a common case in America, that our -mercantile capitals are limited. Gentlemen engaged in commerce can ill -spare so large a proportion in the payment of duties. - -It has been mentioned by gentlemen, that Great Britain collects four -shillings sterling per gallon on rum; yet she is exposed to great -difficulties in obtaining it. But I ask gentlemen, whether Great Britain -ever laid such a high duty in the first instance, as we are about to -impose? I believe they did not: they began, I apprehend, with moderate -duties, and increased them as circumstances authorized, when the people -became habituated to the imposition. This is the very principle I wish -to adopt, and show the world that our conduct is founded in wisdom, -propriety, and experience. If we shall discover our mistake in laying -high duties, and are driven by necessity to reduce them, such measures -will operate to the injury of the fair trader; whereas, if we increase -them by degrees, it will be rather favorable to their interest than -otherwise; at all events, it will injure none. - -If a sense of the committee could be obtained on a general reduction of -ten or fifteen per cent. on the rate the articles now stand at, I should -be glad to vote in favor of such a motion; but I could not approve of -reducing the article of rum alone, because I do not think it charged out -of proportion with the others. - -Mr. JACKSON differed from his colleague, (Mr. BALDWIN.) He thought, -although the British laid four shillings on rum, they did not collect -it; and that their custom-house establishments were so expensive, as to -leave a mere trifle for the net produce of the impost duty. If America -employed such a host of revenue officers as to secure the payment of -high duties, there would be very little left, after compensating their -services, to supply the federal treasury. - -Mr. WADSWORTH desired gentlemen to consider, that the citizens of the -United States owned vessels as well calculated for smuggling, as any -that were employed between the Netherlands and England; therefore, they -had little more security against smuggling than Great Britain. - -Mr. JACKSON.--It was well observed by the honorable gentleman from -Connecticut, (Mr. WADSWORTH,) that America has vessels well adapted for -smuggling: I can declare it, from my own knowledge, to be the fact. It -is not, Mr. Chairman, the large vessels coming off long voyages that we -are to apprehend danger from; it is our coasters, small vessels -constantly coming in and going out; these can run goods from foreign -ports adjacent to the United States; they are best acquainted with the -unfrequented parts, where they can deposit their cargoes with safety, -and will make use of these advantages to defraud your revenue. - -With regard to the equity of the impost system, I conceive direct -taxation will be more equitable. We, in the Southern States, shall then -pay in proportion to our numbers; but under this law we shall contribute -much more. - -Gentlemen talk of improving the morals of the people by taxation. For my -part, I conceive revenue has nothing to do with the morals of the -people; therefore, such considerations have no weight on my mind. All -that I contemplate is, drawing as much money as we can with equity; and -here I believe more can be obtained by a less impost than by a greater; -therefore, I am in favor of reducing the duties. It will likewise be -more honorable to the Government to begin gradually and win the -affections of the people, rather than disgust them by oppressive -measures; for if we lose their confidence, we lose our power and -authority. - -Mr. GERRY.--It appears to me, that gentlemen place their arguments on -the name of high duties, rather than on principle; for if they were -certain that the energy of Government would effect all they aspire at, -then it would follow, that we have nothing more to do than to name the -sum we want. But if these ideas are not well supported, the -superstructure they have raised upon them must fall to the ground. The -energy of your Government depends upon the approbation of the people. No -doubt the citizens of the United States will support the Government -they have adopted, so long as they approve the measures it pursues, but -no longer. Gentlemen trust much, on this occasion, to the co-operation -which they expect from their constituents; but I would wish them to -examine this argument. These duties are to be collected from the several -States into which certain goods are imported. If the people of -Massachusetts shall conceive any particular duty peculiarly oppressive -on them, they will seek to evade it. This opens a door for smuggling all -the other articles. - -I conceive gentlemen to be mistaken with respect to the effects which -high duties will produce on the mercantile interest. I think there -cannot be a doubt but they will be obliged to smuggle; if they mean to -continue their business, their capital will be insufficient for the -purposes of commerce and the payment of high duties. Gentlemen will not -draw knowledge from the experience of Great Britain; therefore, it is -unnecessary to adduce her example. But let us see what we are taught by -the practice of our own States. Massachusetts drew a very considerable -revenue from an impost; she lately tried to increase it by doubling the -duties; but, instead of doing so, they found the revenue lessened, and -they were obliged to alter what they had so injudiciously attempted. I -am willing to suppose with gentlemen, that the Government is invested by -the constitution with sufficient energy to carry any regulation of this -kind into effect; but is this the time to try the energy of your -Government, when your commerce is struggling with every kind of -difficulty and embarrassment? Formerly our merchants were able to extend -their operations by the means of an established credit in Britain; but -unfortunately this is no longer the case. How, then, is it possible they -can continue their trade, when you lop off another part of their -capital? Besides, as was said by the worthy gentleman from Virginia (Mr. -BLAND), there is not money enough in the United States to pay the -duties. I believe it is well known, that our commerce is greatly -distressed by the universal want of specie; there has not been less in -circulation for many years than there is at this time. Gentlemen who -have property cannot convert it into money; then how will the merchant -be able to raise cash for the payment of duties equal to thirty or forty -per cent. on his capital? These are serious and alarming circumstances, -and such as prove to my mind that the commerce was never less able to -bear a high impost than at present, nor ever stood in greater need of -the fostering hand of Government for its support. If gentlemen are -convinced of the truth of these observations, and they are so notorious -that they cannot have escaped the knowledge of any one, they will see -the necessity of turning their attention to the encouragement of -navigation and trade, rather than think of drawing an oppressive revenue -from them. - -Mr. MADISON submitted, whether the burthen would not operate more on the -Southern States than the Northern. The duties could be collected in the -Middle States--this was proved by the experience of some years; for they -had collected in those States, in many instances, duties nearly equal to -what were proposed. In the Eastern States, it was the interest of the -manufacturers to see the duties were well collected; they had been -imposed to favor their interests. The distillers would exert themselves -in aiding the Government to collect the duty on foreign rum, because it -particularly interfered with country rum; from hence he concluded that -the impost could be collected with tolerable certainty even in that -country most convenient for carrying on a clandestine trade. - -Mr. AMES contended that it would be the particular interest of one set -of men to evade the payment of the duties. As mankind was governed by -interest, it required all the attention of the Government to prevent a -breach of the law; because, when the banks and bulwarks of defence were -once broken down, the full tide of clandestine commerce would overflow -the country. Gentlemen recollected the circumstances which attended the -depreciation of the late continental money. Some persons, from motives -of interest or necessity, first made a distinction between it and -specie, and although every exertion was made by the patriotic among our -citizens to prevent the alarming evil, yet every thing was insufficient; -they were at length obliged to acquiesce in measures they could not -prevent. This was the case on that occasion, and will be the case -whenever our laws or regulations run counter to private interest. - -Mr. SHERMAN.--The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. AMES) has said, that -because we cannot raise the whole sum necessary to supply our wants, we -should be content to stop half way. I know we shall not be able to -obtain money enough by the impost to pay off our whole debt, but then I -wish to raise as much as possible in this way. I believe the people are -able to pay as much as the necessities of the Government require; if -they are not, we shall never restore the public credit, which is one of -the chief ends of our appointment. I believe they are not only able but -willing to contribute sufficient for this purpose. The resources of this -country are very great, if they are properly called into action; and -although they may not be so great as those of Britain, yet it should be -remembered, that nation has occasion for twelve times as much revenue as -the United States. - -Gentlemen have had recourse to popular opinion in support of their -arguments. Popular opinion is founded in justice, and the only way to -know if the popular opinion is in favor of a measure, is to examine -whether the measure is just and right in itself. I think whatever is -proper and right, the people will judge of and comply with. The people -wish that the Government may derive respect from the justice of its -measures; they have given it their support on this account. I believe -the popular opinion is in favor of raising a revenue to pay our debts, -and if we do right, they will not neglect their duty; therefore, the -arguments that are urged in favor of a low duty will prove that the -people are contented with what the bill proposes. The people at this -time pay a higher duty on imported rum than what is proposed in this -system, even in Massachusetts; it is true, it is partly laid by way of -excise, but I can see no reason against doing it in this way as well as -the other. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--It has been intimated by gentlemen in favor of high -duties, that it will limit the consumption of foreign articles; if this -be the case, the quantity imported will be lessened; if it is our object -to raise revenue, it is certainly unwise to destroy the object from -which the revenue is to be collected. It is supposed the amount of the -duties will be insufficient to answer the public wants; and yet the -public creditors have great expectations from this resource. Let us -therefore be careful how we destroy it; if revenue is our primary -object, and the other considerations but secondary, we should do nothing -to operate against that principle. - -Mr. MADISON.--It does not follow, because it will in some degree limit -the consumption, that we ought not to lay a high duty on rum; if it has -that effect, it will be an ample compensation for the loss of revenue; -but probably, as we extinguish our debt, we shall have the less occasion -for the revenue itself. - -Mr. GOODHUE.--The object of the committee is to raise revenue, I take -it. This would, perhaps, be best done by reducing the duty, but I am not -inclined to reduce it so low as some gentlemen seem to desire; it may be -reduced a few cents, and therefore I move to insert ten instead of -twelve. - -The question was taken for striking out the twelve cents, as it stood in -the bill, on all spirits of Jamaica proof, imported from the dominions -of nations in alliance with the United States, in order to leave it -blank, to be filled up hereafter. - -The House divided on the question; 19 in favor of the motion, and 26 -against it. - -So it passed in the negative. - -Adjourned. - - -MONDAY, May 11. - -_On Titles._ - -The House took into consideration the message from the Senate, -communicated on Saturday last, respecting the disagreement of the Senate -to the report of a joint committee, on the subject of annexing titles to -the offices of President and Vice President. - -Mr. PARKER moved a resolution to the following effect: - - _Resolved_, That this House having, on Tuesday last, - adopted the report of their committee appointed to confer - with a committee of the Senate, stating, "That it is not - proper to annex any style or title to the respective - styles or titles of office expressed in the constitution;" - and having, in their address to the President of the United - States on Friday last, proceeded to act pursuant thereto, - deem it improper to accede to the proposition made by the - Senate, as communicated by their order of the 9th instant, - for appointing a committee to confer with a committee of - this House, in considering and reporting under what title - it will be proper for the President of the United States in - future to be addressed. - -Mr. PAGE seconded the motion, observing, that in his opinion, the House -had no right to interfere in the business: the constitution expressly -prescribed the power of Congress as to bestowing titles. He did not -conceive the real honor or dignity of either of those situations to -consist in high sounding titles. The House had, on a former occasion, -expressed their disapprobation of any title being annexed to their own -members, and very justly too. After having so fully and explicitly -declared their sentiments against such measures, he thought it behooved -them to be explicit with the Senate. Indeed, he felt himself a good deal -hurt, that gentlemen on this floor, after having refused their -permission to the Clerk to enter any more than their plain names on the -journal, should be standing up and addressing one another by the title -of "the honorable gentlemen." He wished the practice could be got over, -because it added neither to the honor nor dignity of the House. - -Mr. LEE approved of the appointment of a committee to confer with a -committee of the Senate, as to the mode due to the occasion; but he was -against adding any title. - -Mr. TUCKER.--When this business was first brought before the House, I -objected to the appointment of a committee to confer with a committee of -the Senate, because I thought it a subject which this House had no right -to take into consideration. I then stood single and unsupported in my -opinion, but have had the pleasure to find since, that some gentlemen on -this floor agree that I was right. If I was then right, I shall, from -stronger reasoning, be right now in opposing the appointment of another -committee on the same subject. The joint committee reported that no -titles ought to be given; we agreed to the report, and I was in hopes we -should have heard no more of the matter. The Senate rejected the report, -and have now sent us a resolution, expressive of a determination to give -a title, to which they desire our concurrence. I am still of the opinion -that we were wrong in appointing the first committee, and think that we -shall be guilty of greater impropriety if we now appoint another. What, -sir, is the intention of this business? Will it not alarm our -fellow-citizens? Will it not give them just cause of alarm? Will they -not say, that they have been deceived by the convention that framed the -constitution? That it has been contrived with a view to lead them on by -degrees to that kind of government which they have thrown off with -abhorrence? Shall we not justify the fears of those who were opposed to -the constitution, because they considered it as insidious and hostile to -the liberties of the people? One of its warmest advocates, one of the -framers of it, (Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania,) has recommended it by -calling it a pure democracy. Does this look like a democracy, when one -of the first acts of the two branches of the Legislature is to confer -titles? Surely not. To give dignity to our government, we must give a -lofty title to our chief magistrate. Does the dignity of a nation -consist in the distance between the first magistrate and his citizens? -Does it consist in the exaltation of one man, and the humiliation of the -rest? If so, the most despotic government is the most dignified; and to -make our dignity complete, we must give a high title, an embroidered -robe, a princely equipage, and, finally, a crown and hereditary -succession. Let us, sir, establish tranquillity and good order at home, -and wealth, strength, and national dignity will be the infallible -result. The aggregate of dignity will be the same whether it be divided -among all, or centred in one. And whom, sir, do we mean to gratify? Is -it our present President? Certainly, if we expect to please him, we -shall be greatly disappointed. He has a real dignity of character, and -is above such little vanities. We shall give him infinite pain; we shall -do him an essential injury. We shall place him in a most delicate and -disagreeable situation; we shall reduce him to the necessity of evincing -to the world his disapprobation of our measures, or of risking some -diminution of that high reputation for disinterested patriotism which he -has so justly acquired. It is not for his gratification; for whose, -then, are we to do this? Where is the man among us who has the -presumption and vanity to expect it? Who is it that shall say--for my -aggrandizement three millions of people have entered into a calamitous -war; they have persevered in it for eight long years; they have -sacrificed their property, they have spilt their blood, they have -rendered thousands of families wretched by the loss of their only -protectors and means of support? This spirit of imitation, sir, this -spirit of mimicry and apery will be the ruin of our country. Instead of -giving us dignity in the eye of foreigners, it will expose us to be -laughed at as apes. They gave us credit for our exertions in effecting -the revolution, but they will say that we want independence of spirit to -render it a blessing to us. - -Mr. TRUMBULL moved for the appointment of a Committee of Conference, to -consider on the difference which appeared in the votes of the two Houses -upon the report of the joint committee. - -Mr. BURKE hoped the House would express their decided disapprobation of -bestowing titles in any shape whatever; it would be an indignity in the -House to countenance any measures of this nature. Perhaps some gentlemen -might think the subject was a matter of indifference; but it did not -appear to him in that light. The introduction of two words which he -could mention into the titles of these officers, would alter the -constitution itself; but he would forbear to say any thing further, as -he had a well-grounded expectation that the House would take no further -notice of the business. - -Mr. GOODHUE thought the conference unnecessary, because the House had -not only adopted the report of their committee, but proceeded to act in -pursuance thereof. - -Mr. SENEY joined the last gentleman in sentiment, and thought it an -unnecessary waste of time to give the subject any longer discussion. - -Mr. MADISON.--I may be well disposed to concur in opinion with gentlemen -that we ought not to recede from our former vote on this subject, yet at -the same time I may wish to proceed with due respect to the Senate, and -give dignity and weight to our own opinion, so far as it contradicts -theirs, by the deliberate and decent manner in which we decide. For my -part, Mr. Speaker, I do not conceive titles to be so pregnant with -danger as some gentlemen apprehend. I believe a President of the United -States, clothed with all the powers given in the constitution, would not -be a dangerous person to the liberties of America, if you were to load -him with all the titles of Europe or Asia. We have seen superb and -august titles given, without conferring power and influence, or without -even obtaining respect. One of the most impotent sovereigns in Europe -has assumed a title as high as human invention can devise; for example, -what words can imply a greater magnitude of power and strength than that -of High Mightiness? This title seems to border almost upon impiety; it -is assuming the pre-eminence and omnipotence of the Deity; yet this -title, and many others cast in the same mould, have obtained a long time -in Europe, but have they conferred power? Does experience sanction such -an opinion? Look at the republic I have alluded to, and say if their -present state warrants the idea. - -I am not afraid of titles, because I fear the danger of any power they -could confer, but I am against them because they are not very -reconcilable with the nature of our Government or the genius of the -people. Even if they were proper in themselves, they are not so at this -juncture of time. But my strongest objection is founded in principle; -instead of increasing, they diminish the true dignity and importance of -a republic, and would in particular, on this occasion, diminish the true -dignity of the first magistrate himself. If we give titles, we must -either borrow or invent them. If we have recourse to the fertile fields -of luxuriant fancy, and deck out an airy being of our own creation, it -is a great chance but its fantastic properties would render the empty -phantom ridiculous and absurd. If we borrow, the servile imitation will -be odious, not to say ridiculous also; we must copy from the pompous -sovereigns of the East, or follow the inferior potentates of Europe; in -either case, the splendid tinsel or gorgeous robe would disgrace the -manly shoulders of our chief. The more truly honorable shall we be, by -showing a total neglect and disregard to things of this nature; the more -simple, the more republican we are in our manners, the more rational -dignity we shall acquire; therefore, I am better pleased with the report -adopted by the House, than I should have been with any other whatsoever. - -The Senate, no doubt, entertain different sentiments on this subject. I -would wish, therefore, to treat their opinion with respect and -attention. I would desire to justify the reasonable and republican -decision of this House to the other branch of Congress in order to -prevent a misunderstanding. But that the motion of my worthy colleague -(Mr. PARKER) has possession of the House, I would move a more temperate -proposition, and I think it deserves some pains to bring about that good -will and urbanity, which for the despatch of public business ought to be -kept up between the two Houses. I do not think it would be a sacrifice -of dignity to appoint a Committee of Conference, but imagine it would -tend to cement that harmony which has hitherto been preserved between -the Senate and this House; therefore, while I concur with the gentlemen -who express, in such decided terms, their disapprobation of bestowing -titles, I concur also with those who are for the appointment of a -Committee of Conference, not apprehending they will depart from the -principles adopted and acted upon by the House. - -Mr. WHITE did not approve of a Committee of Conference, because the -House had already determined the question by unanimously adopting the -report of the joint committee. He did not think that it was worth while -having the subject longer contested; he was satisfied both the spirit of -the constitution and the spirit of the people disapproved of titles. - -Mr. BLAND would be careful of giving umbrage to the Senate, because he -wished that the unanimity and moderation which subsisted between the two -Houses might continue. He considered the present as a very proper -opportunity for the appointment of a Committee of Conference. The two -Houses had disagreed on the report of their committees; it was proper, -therefore, that they should mutually assign their reasons, in order to -bring about an agreement to the same resolution. He hoped, therefore, -that such a committee would be appointed, though he had no expectation -that the House would give up an opinion they so justly and decidedly -entertained respecting titles. - -Mr. PARKER wanted to know what was the object of gentlemen in the -appointment of a Committee of Conference? The committee could only say -that the House had refused their consent to annexing any titles whatever -to the President and Vice President; for certainly the committee would -not descend into the merits of a question already established by the -House. For his part, he could not see what purpose was to be answered -by the appointment of such a committee. He wished to have done with the -subject, because while it remained a question in the House, the people's -minds would be much agitated; it was impossible that a true republican -spirit could remain unconcerned when a principle was under -consideration, so repugnant to the principles of equal liberty. - -Mr. SHERMAN thought it was pretty plain that the House could not comply -with the proposition of the Senate. The appointment of a committee, on -the part of the House, to consider and determine what style or title -will be proper to annex to the President and Vice President, would imply -that the House meant that some style or title should be given. Now this -they never could intend, because they have decided that no style or -title ought to be given; it will be sufficient to adduce this reason for -not complying with the request of the Senate. - -Mr. JACKSON wondered what title the Senate had in contemplation to add -dignity or lustre to the person that filled the presidential chair. For -his part, he could conceive none. Would it add to his fame to be called -after the petty and insignificant princes of Europe? Would styling him -His Serene Highness, His Grace, or Mightiness, add one tittle to the -solid properties he possessed? He thought it would not; and therefore -conceived the proposition to be trifling with the dignity of the -Government. As a difference had taken place between the two Houses, he -had no objection to a conference taking place. He hoped it might be -productive of good consequences, and that the Senate might be induced to -follow the laudable example of the House. - -Mr. MADISON was of opinion, that the House might appoint a Committee of -Conference without being supposed to countenance the measure. The -standing rule of the House declared, that, in case of disagreeing votes, -a Committee of Conference should be appointed. Now, as the case provided -for in the rule had actually happened, he inferred that it was proper to -proceed in the manner directed by the rules of the House. The subject -was still open to discussion, but there was little probability that the -House would rescind their adoption of the report. I presume gentlemen do -not intend to compel the Senate into their measures; they should -recollect that the Senate stand upon independent ground, and will do -nothing but what they are convinced of the propriety of; it would be -better, therefore, to treat them with delicacy, and offer some reasons -to induce them to come into our measure. He expected this would be the -result of a conference, and therefore was in favor of such a motion. - -Mr. SENEY intended nothing disrespectful to the Senate, but he -conceived, after having adopted the report of the committee, it would -derogate from their own dignity to rescind a unanimous resolution; and -for what other purpose could a conference be appointed by the House? -They must certainly suppose that there might be ground for changing -their opinion. Nothing of this kind appeared to him, and therefore he -was of opinion, it would be a useless consumption to waste any more time -about it. - -Mr. CLYMER thought that there was little occasion to add any title to -either the President or Vice President. He was very well convinced, by -experience, that titles did not confer power; on the contrary, they -frequently made their possessors ridiculous. The most impotent -potentates, the most insignificant powers, generally assumed the highest -and most lofty titles. That they do not indicate power and prerogative, -is very observable in the English history; for when the chief magistrate -of that nation bore the simple style of His Grace or Highness, his -prerogatives were much more extensive than since he has become His Most -Sacred Majesty. - -Titular distinctions are said to be unpopular in the United States; yet -a person would be led to think otherwise, from the vast number of -honorable gentlemen we have in America. As soon as a man is selected for -the public service, his fellow-citizens, with liberal hand, shower down -titles on him--either excellency or honorable. He would venture to -affirm, there were more honorable esquires in the United States than in -all the world besides. He wished to check a propensity so notoriously -evidenced in favor of distinctions, and hoped the example of the House -might prevail to extinguish that predilection which appeared in favor of -titles. - -Mr. PAGE.--If I thought the motion made by my colleague in the least -degree disrespectful, I should not have seconded it. I would be the last -man on this floor to treat that worthy body with disrespect; but I -believe it cannot be construed to have such a meaning. If we were to let -the resolution lie on the table, it would not be disrespectful. But what -is the object of the motion? Simply to inform the Senate that we cannot -rescind a resolution adopted in consequence of the report of a joint -committee. If the conduct of either House is in the least degree -disrespectful, (though I do not conceive it is,) the body who declined -adopting the report, after knowing the sense of the other to be in its -favor, is the most so. - -But on what are a committee to confer? Not upon what title shall be -bestowed, because we have no right to enter on the subject; and here I -must tell gentlemen I differ from them, when they think titles can do no -harm. Titles, sir, I say, may do harm, and have done harm. If we contend -now for a right to confer titles, I apprehend the time will come when we -shall form a reservoir for honor, and make our President the fountain of -it. In such case, may not titles do an injury to the Union? They have -been the occasion of an eternal faction in the kingdom we were formerly -connected with, and may beget like inquietude in America; for I contend, -if you give the title, you must follow it with the robe and the diadem, -and then the principles of your government are subverted. - -Mr. LEE moved the previous question, as the best mode of getting rid of -the motion before the House: he was supported by a sufficient number. -And on the question, Shall the main question be now put? it passed in -the negative; and so the motion was lost. - -On motion, it was - - _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed, to join with - such committee as the Senate may appoint, to confer on the - disagreeing votes of the two Houses, upon the report of - their joint committee, appointed to consider what titles - shall be given to the President and Vice President of the - United States, if any other than those given in the - constitution. - -Messrs. MADISON, PAGE, BENSON, TRUMBULL, and SHERMAN were the committee -elected. - - -_Impost Bill._ - -The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for laying -a duty on goods, wares, and merchandises imported into the United -States. Mr. PAGE in the chair. - -The question on laying a duty on molasses being under consideration: - -Mr. TUCKER.--Notwithstanding I am anxious for a reduction of the duties -on all the articles in the bill, yet my vote on molasses will be -regulated by what the committee shall determine in other cases, as I do -not conceive it to be out of proportion. If a general reduction takes -place on the other articles, I shall be disposed to make a reduction on -this article; but as mine is but a single vote, gentlemen may not be -inclined to favor my proposition for a general reduction in order to -gain my assent to a reduction on this particular article. - -Mr. GOODHUE was of opinion that the duties were too high for collection; -but he did not agree with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. TUCKER) -that the duty on molasses was rated in proportion to the other articles, -and therefore the question, whether molasses shall be reduced or not, -did not depend on a general reduction, but on its own bottom; if it was -rated too high for collection and proportion, the committee would agree -to reduce it. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS expected the gentleman from South Carolina would vote in -the manner he had pledged himself; he had promised to vote for reducing -the duty on molasses if the committee reduced the duty on other -articles; now, as they had decided against a reduction, he hoped the -gentleman would be in favor of the duty on molasses, as it stood in the -bill, and not vote in the manner he had promised. - -Mr. TUCKER.--The gentleman last up has certainly misunderstood me. I -made no promise. I said my vote would depend upon the reduction of the -other articles, but I was indifferent as to rum; I did not consider the -State I represented as being either particularly benefited or injured by -a duty on rum; and therefore did not urge any arguments in favor of -reducing that article, more than I thought it might be proper to -preserve the ratio, as fixed by the House, between the several articles. -If gentlemen think rum can bear a high duty, and be safely collected, I -have no objection to letting it remain. But there are some articles that -bear heavily and unequally upon South Carolina; now, I think it my duty -to vote in such a manner as to prevent her from bearing an undue -proportion of the tax to be collected; I am, consequently, obliged to -vote for a high tax on articles used in other States, (if my State is -highly taxed,) however unequally it may fall. I shall therefore vote so -as to endeavor to oblige other States to bear their true proportion of -the aggregate sum. I wish to defer any determination on the article of -molasses until we have gone through the other articles, that I may know -how to vote on this. If gentlemen think my single vote of no -consequence, they may proceed; but I may think the duty too high on -molasses, and may be disposed to make it five cents, or less, if a -reduction is made in the other articles; but I would not be understood -to pledge myself for any particular sum. - -Mr. AMES thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FITZSIMONS) had -misunderstood the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. TUCKER) respecting -his pledging himself to vote in favor of molasses. He believed the -gentleman from South Carolina incapable of making any improper -accommodation either on this or any other occasion; the subject had -never been mentioned to him, nor he believed to any body else, much less -could the gentleman's intention be the result of bargain or compromise. -For his own part, he would never consent to such a degradation of his -rights as a member of the House, as to stipulate for the exercise of his -opinion. - -Mr. TUCKER.--If the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FITZSIMONS) -supposes that I have bargained to vote for or against any measure, he -does me wrong; and if he charges me with such actions, I desire he may -state his reasons and explain himself. I did not hear perfectly what he -said when he was up before, and therefore did not refute any improper -construction he might have put on my arguments. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS had no difficulty in declaring his meaning. He understood -when the article of rum was under consideration, that the gentleman held -out a promise to vote for the reduction of the duty on molasses, if the -committee would agree with him in reducing generally. This promise was -not made in a private manner; it was made by the gentleman in his place. -He could not recite the particular expression of the gentleman, but he -understood from it that the gentleman pledged himself to reduce the duty -on molasses, if the gentlemen from the Eastern States would join him in -a general reduction. - -Mr. TUCKER.--I expressed a wish for a general reduction to take place -throughout the whole system; but I never made a promise with regard to a -reduction of any particular article. - -Mr. SENEY observed, that the discussion of molasses had been deferred -when the subject was last before the House, in order to give time for a -full investigation; but he conceived that no such reason now existed, in -favor of its lying over, and therefore hoped the House would proceed to -decide upon it. - -Mr. AMES was willing to proceed to the consideration of that subject; he -did not wish it deferred to the end of the list, that it might be held -over them _in terrorem_. There were several articles in the list, which -he did not conceive to be taxed too high for collection, or out of -proportion with others, therefore it was likely they would not be -reduced. If this was the case, the reduction would not be general, and -the gentleman from South Carolina might not think it his duty to favor -the reduction of molasses. He wished every article to stand upon its own -bottom. If molasses was too high, the committee would lower it; if not, -they will continue it at the rate it is, and the business would be done -with. If the committee were disposed to proceed, he was ready to take up -the subject. - -Mr. CARROLL saw no reason for postponing the business at this time. When -the subject was suspended on a former occasion, several gentlemen from -Massachusetts were absent on business, but it was surely unnecessary now -to have any delay. After the repeated discussions it had undergone, he -was satisfied gentlemen were prepared for a decision, and he hoped the -question might be taken, and the committee proceed to get through the -business. Gentlemen should consider the daily loss which the revenue -sustained by the delay of this bill; he cautioned them against -considering overmuch, and letting slip the opportunity they now had to -supply the public wants. - -Mr. WADSWORTH would not go over the old ground, and enumerate all the -reasons why a reduction of the duty on this article should take place. -He satisfied himself with saying it was out of proportion, and too high -ever to be collected with certainty; he wished the committee to lower it -to three or four cents, and apply to an excise for the deficiency, not -conceiving an excise on distilled spirits to be inconvenient or -unpopular. - -Mr. AMES was sensible that any further discussion of the present subject -was unpleasant, nay, it was painful to the committee; but he had such -impressions on his mind with regard to its importance, that he must -trespass on them again. On all subjects demonstration is desirable, but -there is only one science capable of complete demonstration. Many other -sciences admit of different degrees of demonstration; but of all the -sciences on earth, the science of politics is the least capable of -affording satisfactory conclusions, while it is the one that, from its -importance, requires the greatest degree of certainty; because when we -are to consider those things which relate to the welfare of nations, it -is of consequence, and nothing can be more desirable than that we adopt -just principles in order to come at proper conclusions. In this science -it is dangerous to adopt the visionary projects of speculators instead -of principle. We ought to be cautious, therefore, in selecting the -information upon which we form our system. - -He trusted to make it appear in the course of his arguments, that the -propriety of the particular measure under discussion depended upon local -knowledge, and yet it would be found of national concern. He believed it -could be clearly proved to be as much the interest of one part as of -another to have the duty reduced. - -It was laid down as a principle that all duties ought to be equal. He -believed, if gentlemen gave themselves time for consideration, they -would not contend this duty was equal. He said he had made some -calculations, which demonstrated the inequality to a very surprising -degree. The tax operated in two ways: first, as a tax on a raw material, -which increased the price of stock and narrowed the sale; and second, as -a tax on an article of consumption. It required the distillation and the -consumption to be equal in every part of the Union to render the duty -equal in its operation; but no gentleman contended that the consumption -or distillation was equal. The gentleman from Virginia said, on a former -occasion, that Massachusetts would not contribute her proportion of the -national revenue, because her exports were not equal to the Southern -States, and of consequence her imports are less; but if this fact is -examined, it will be found that she does export in full proportion with -the Southern States. Examine her custom-house books, and you will find -it; but Massachusetts is greatly concerned in navigation, and the wages -of her seamen ought to be added to the amount of the profits of her -industry. Then if we consider her consumption, we shall find it in -proportion also. Admitting the people of New England to live more -moderate than the opulent citizens of Virginia or Carolina, yet they -have not such a number of blacks among them, whose living is wretched; -consequently, the average consumption per head will be nearly the same. -The fact is, that all taxes of this nature will fall generally in -proportion to the ability to pay. - -Laying a heavy duty on molasses incurs the necessity of allowing a -drawback on country rum. By this system, we may lose more revenue than -we gain; anyhow, it will render it very uncertain. It is a question of -some importance, whether it would not be beneficial to the United States -to establish a manufacture which would be very lucrative. But waiving -that consideration, he would ask gentlemen, if there was any propriety -in taxing molasses in its raw state, with a duty intended to be laid on -rum? Certainly this had better be by way of excise. In this mode the -revenue would escape fraud by smuggling, which would otherwise be -unavoidable. The tax was such a temptation, being thirty per cent. upon -its value, that no checks could prevent a clandestine trade being -carried on. - -Without the molasses trade is continued, the fishery cannot be carried -on. They are so intimately connected, that the weapon which wounds the -one will stab the other. If by such measures as these we ruin one of the -most valuable interests of the United States, will not the people have a -right to complain that, instead of protecting, you injure and destroy -their pursuits? He did not mean to say that the people would form -unwarrantable combinations; but their exertions to support the -Government will be damped; they will look with chagrin on the -disappointment of their hopes; and it will add to their vexation that -they have been deceived under the most flattering appearances; for who -could conceive that a Government, constructed and adopted in the manner -this has been, could ever be administered to the destruction of that -welfare which it was formed to support? - -He recommended experience as the best guide, and said, that it was -decidedly against high duties, particularly on molasses; and concluded -with appealing to the justice and wisdom of the committee for a -determination on this subject. - -Mr. CARROLL would not take up the time of the committee with saying a -word on the main subject, but begged them to consider of how much -importance it was to the Union to get this bill into operation. If every -article was to be again debated in the manner it had already been, he -could see no end to the business. Unless gentlemen could advance some -new and weighty arguments, he thought the time misspent in -recapitulating those that had been unsuccessfully urged twice or three -times before. - -Mr. MADISON thought the arguments against the duty were inconsistent. He -believed the gentlemen in opposition had not replied to an observation -he had made, and which was of great force on his mind. The gentlemen all -say that a heavy duty will ruin the distilleries and fisheries, and the -people concerned in them; yet they profess themselves willing to lay the -same duty, but in two forms instead of one. Now he would be glad to know -if the distilleries and fisheries would not be precisely in the same -situation, let which would take place? - -On motion, the committee rose, and the House adjourned. - - -TUESDAY, May 12. - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. PAGE -in the chair, on the Impost Bill. - -The article of molasses being still under consideration: - -Mr. AMES wished to reply to the observation made yesterday by the -gentleman from Virginia. Does that gentleman, said he, recollect, if we -lay an excise, we prevent the burthen from being imposed upon the poor -for their subsistence, as molasses, in the raw state, will be lightly -taxed? In the next place, it is more favorable to the importers of that -article than the impost; it does not require so large a proportion of -their capital to be advanced in payment of duties, nor do they run the -risk of bad debts, because it may be so regulated that the retailer -shall secure the duty. Another reason is, it will save the expense of a -numerous host of custom-house officers, tide-waiters, &c. These -considerations proved, that if the excise was no better than an impost, -it was no worse; and as the duty would be better collected, and give -less reason for smuggling, which, above all things, was dangerous to the -revenue, it was sufficient to warrant the committee in giving the excise -duty a preference. - -Mr. GOODHUE would not trouble the House long on the subject; but begged -leave to repeat the manner in which the molasses trade was connected -with the fisheries, and the fisheries with the navigation; that, if the -first is injured, the other two are wounded through its side. About -three-fifths of all the fish that are put up for that market, are of an -inferior quality, and would not sell elsewhere. The French would not -permit us to carry them there, but because we take their molasses in -exchange; they will not let their colonies send the molasses to France, -lest it interfere with their brandy. Now, any impediment to the -exportation of molasses, will prevent the exportation of fish; if we -cannot export the fish, for what purpose shall we continue our -fisheries? And if they are given up, how are we to form seamen to man -our future navy? - -Mr. MADISON said his mind was incapable of discovering any plan that -would answer the purpose the committee have in view, and not produce -greater evils than the one under consideration. He thought an excise -very objectionable, but as no actual proposition for entering into such -a system was before the committee, he forbore to say any thing further -about it. He admitted an excise would obviate in part some of the -difficulties; but he did not think the answer given to his argument -altogether satisfactory; yet there was another argument he urged on a -former occasion remaining unanswered--it was, that, at this moment, the -fisheries, distilleries, and all their connections, were laboring under -heavier duties than what is now proposed; true, the duty is collected in -a different mode, but it affects the consumer in the same manner. The -gentlemen have said, to be sure, that the duty is evaded; but if half is -collected, it amounts to more than six cents per gallon. - -It is said that a tax on molasses will be unpopular, but not more so -than a tax on salt. Can gentlemen state more serious apprehensions in -the former than the latter case? yet the committee did not forego a -productive fund, because the article was a necessary of life, and in -general consumption. If there is the disposition that is represented for -people to complain of the oppression of Government, have not the -citizens of the Southern States more just ground for complaint than -others? The system can only be acceptable to them, because it is -essentially necessary to be adopted for the public good. - -Gentlemen argue, that a tax on molasses is unpopular, and prove it by -experience under the British Government. If this is to be adduced as a -proof of the popularity of a measure, what are we to say with respect to -a tax on tea? Gentlemen remembered, no doubt, how odious this kind of -tax was thought to be throughout America; yet the House had, without -hesitation, laid a considerable duty upon it. He did not imagine that a -duty on either of those articles was in itself objectionable; it was the -principle upon which the tax was laid that made them unpopular under the -British Government. - -It is said that this tax is unjust; now, he had not a single idea of -justice, that did not contradict the position. If it be considered as it -relates to rum, he was certain the consumers of foreign rum paid a -larger proportion of revenue into the Treasury than the consumers of -country rum; they paid more than equal distributive justice required; if -it was considered as it respected molasses, there would appear no -injustice. Molasses was consumed in other States; but if it was not, -sugar was used in its stead, and subjected to a duty full as high as -that on molasses. But dismissing both these considerations, and even -admitting the whole weight to fall upon the Northern States, it would -not be disproportioned, because, in the long list of enumerated articles -subject to a high duty, they imported few or none; indeed, the articles -were pretty generally taxed for the benefit of the manufacturing part of -the northern community; see loaf sugar, candles, cheese, soap, &c. He -hoped gentlemen would not infer from this observation, that he thought -the encouragement held out by the bill to manufactures improper; far -from it; he was glad to see their growing consequences, and was disposed -to give them every aid in his power. From this view of the subject, he -was inclined to adhere to the bill, and not make any reduction. - -Mr. GERRY hoped the committee would not consider the subject as finally -decided; he thought it deserving of further investigation, and expected -the committee would be satisfied of the propriety of making some -reduction. He felt a concern at being obliged to extend the discussion, -but his duty impelled him to oppose a measure he conceived injurious to -his country. - -Gentlemen had contended, that a duty of six cents per gallon on molasses -was just and equal; for his part, he could not discover, with all the -exertions his mind was capable of making, how gentlemen prove this to be -the case; it appeared to him partial and oppressive. - -The principle laid down in the constitution for an equal distribution of -taxes was, that they shall be apportioned among the several States, -according to their respective number of inhabitants. This principle is -made positive as it respects direct taxes; but he thought the equality -ought to extend itself to every possible case. The power possessed by -the House, with regard to revenue and the power of making all necessary -laws, enabled the General Government to exist independent of subordinate -associations; but if they were inclined to annihilate the State -Governments, yet it would be their interest to attend to the advantages -of the community, and administer their power so as not to make it -burthensome and oppressive. Now, he wished to know, what principle of -justice authorized the committee to lay a duty of six cents on molasses? -Unfortunately for Massachusetts, she imports a greater quantity than the -whole Union besides. This makes her interest stand alone, and her -representatives are left to labor the point, knowing the ill effect it -will have upon their constituents. Under these circumstances, it is -necessary to pay particular attention to the justice of the measure; -gentlemen should consider that, in such cases, there is danger of -interest prevailing over equity and policy. Certainly, if the measure is -pursued, we shall discover this effect in the end. - -Gentlemen have considered the arguments brought against this duty as -standing upon local ground, advocating the local interest of -Massachusetts. He would examine this position. It is the interest of a -majority of the people of that State, that as much revenue should be -drawn from molasses as possible. I say it is the interest of the State, -for their interest is divided between the landed and commercial; the -landed interest predominates, and it was always supposed that the -commercial bore a greater share of the public burthen than it ought. The -conduct of the State of Massachusetts ought to be esteemed by us as the -best guide to discover how far our commercial regulations, as they -respect that State, are consistent with policy, if she furnishes the -best example. Can we find that she ever imposed a duty of six cents per -gallon on molasses? Not a single instance can be produced where she -raised revenue from this article. If they then never laid a duty upon -it, and they were disposed to get every thing in their power from -commerce, we must conclude that if it could have been laid they would -have done it. It is not the landed citizens, if he might use the term, -who consume molasses; it is the inhabitants of the sea-coast; the former -had the power, and they were interested to lay such a tax, it might -therefore be expected they would have done it, if they had not been -convinced it would have destroyed the fisheries and navigation of the -State. - -The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) cannot see how an impost on -molasses can affect the distilleries and fisheries. After having been -repeated over and over again, it would be unnecessary that he should -dwell on this point. But every one could see the connection; if we do -not import molasses, we cannot carry on our distilleries nor vend our -fish; and it will be impossible to import molasses under such heavy -duties; at least the future importation will be limited to two-thirds of -the present, because the demand will be in proportion to the increase of -price, and the merchant will not have capital to import more than -two-thirds of his usual quantity. - -He would not reiterate the arguments respecting the fisheries; it was -well known to be the best nursery for seamen, the United States had no -other, and it never could be the intention of gentlemen to leave the -navigation of the Union to the mercy of foreign powers. It is of -necessity, then, that we lay the foundation of our maritime importance -as soon as may be, and this can be done only by encouraging our -fisheries. It is also well known that we have a number of rivals in this -business desirous of excluding us from the fishing banks altogether. -This consideration of itself is sufficient to induce a wise legislature -to extend every encouragement to so important a concern. In any -regulation they make, by which it can be effected, they ought to be sure -of the ground on which they go. - -It appeared to him that six cents would have the most ruinous -consequences to the general interest; he therefore hoped gentlemen would -agree to reduce it, if not so as to place it among the _ad valorem_ -articles, at least down to two cents. However, as the committee are not -prepared to say the particular sum proper to be laid, he hoped they -would agree to leave it a blank, to be filled up at some future stage of -the business. - -The question was now taken on striking out six cents, and passed in the -affirmative: ayes 24, noes 22. - -Propositions were severally made for filling up the blank with two, -three, four, and five cents; five being the highest was first put and -agreed to--ayes 25, noes 23. - -The committee proceeded to consider the subsequent articles; but not -having time to go through the whole, they rose, and reported progress, -and the House adjourned. - - -WEDNESDAY, May 13. - -The petition of John Fitch, of Pennsylvania, was presented, stating that -he is the original discoverer of the principle of applying steam-power -to the purposes of navigation, and has obtained an exclusive right -therein for a term of years, in the States of Virginia, Delaware, -Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, and praying that his rights may -be secured to him by law, so as to preclude subsequent improvers upon -his principle from participation therein, until the expiration of his -granted right. Referred to a committee, consisting of Messrs. -HUNTINGTON, CADWALADER, and CONTEE, to report thereon. - - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -Impost Bill, Mr. PAGE in the chair. - - -AFRICAN SLAVES. - -Mr. PARKER moved to insert a clause in the bill, imposing a duty on the -importation of slaves, of ten dollars each person. He was sorry that the -constitution prevented Congress from prohibiting the importation -altogether; he thought it a defect in that instrument that it allowed of -such a practice; it was contrary to the Revolution principles, and ought -not to be permitted; but as he could not do all the good he desired, he -was willing to do what lay in his power. He hoped such a duty as he -moved for would prevent, in some degree, this irrational and inhuman -traffic; if so, he should feel happy from the success of his motion. - -Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, hoped that such an important and serious -proposition as this would not be hastily adopted. It was a very late -moment for the introduction of new subjects. He expected the committee -had got through the business, and would rise without discussing any -thing further. At least, if gentlemen were determined on considering the -present motion, he hoped they would delay it for a few days, in order to -give time for an examination of the subject. It was certainly a matter -big with the most serious consequences to the State he represented; he -did not think any one thing that had been discussed was so important to -them, and the welfare of the Union, as the question now brought forward; -but he was not prepared to enter on any argument, and therefore -requested the motion might either be withdrawn or laid on the table. - -Mr. SHERMAN approved of the object of the motion, but he did not think -this bill was proper to embrace the subject. He could not reconcile -himself to the insertion of human beings as an article of duty, among -goods, wares, and merchandise. He hoped it would be withdrawn for the -present, and taken up hereafter as an independent subject. - -Mr. JACKSON, observing the quarter from which this motion came, said it -did not surprise him, though it might have that effect upon others. He -recollected that Virginia was an old settled State, and had her -complement of slaves; so she was careless of recruiting her numbers by -this means; the natural increase of her imported blacks was sufficient -for their purpose; but he thought gentlemen ought to let their neighbors -get supplied, before they imposed such a burthen upon the importation. -He knew this business was viewed in an odious light to the eastward, -because the people were capable of doing their own work, and had no -occasion for slaves; but gentlemen will have some feeling for others; -they will not try to throw all the weight upon those who have assisted -in lightening their burthens; they do not wish to charge us for every -comfort and enjoyment of life, and at the same time take away the means -of procuring them; they do not wish to break us down at once. - -He was convinced, from the inaptitude of the motion, and the want of -time to consider it, that the candor of the gentleman would induce him -to withdraw it for the present; and if ever it came forward again, he -hoped it would comprehend the white slaves as well as black, who were -imported from all the jails of Europe; wretches, convicted of the most -flagrant crimes, were brought in and sold without any duty whatever. He -thought that they ought to be taxed equally with the Africans, and had -no doubt but the constitutionality and propriety of such a measure was -equally apparent with the one proposed. - -Mr. TUCKER thought it unfair to bring in such an important subject at a -time when debate was almost precluded. The committee had gone through -the impost bill, and the whole Union was impatiently expecting the -result of their deliberations; the public must be disappointed, and much -revenue lost, or this question cannot undergo that full discussion which -it deserves. - -We have no right, said he, to consider whether the importation of slaves -is proper or not; the constitution gives us no power on that point; it -is left to the States to judge of that matter as they see fit. But if it -is a business the gentleman is determined to discourage, he ought to -have brought his motion forward sooner, and even then not have -introduced it without previous notice. He hoped the committee would -reject the motion, if it was not withdrawn. He was not speaking so much -for the State he represented as for Georgia; because the State of South -Carolina had a prohibitory law, which could be renewed when its -limitation expired. - -Mr. PARKER had ventured to introduce the subject after full -deliberation, and did not like to withdraw it. Although the gentleman -from Connecticut (Mr. SHERMAN) had said, that they ought not to be -enumerated with goods, wares, and merchandise, he believed they were -looked upon by the African traders in this light. He knew it was -degrading the human species to annex that character to them; but he -would rather do this than continue the actual evil of importing slaves a -moment longer. He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their power to -restore to human nature its inherent privileges, and, if possible, wipe -off the stigma under which America labored. The inconsistency in our -principles, with which we are justly charged, should be done away, that -we may show, by our actions, the pure beneficence of the doctrine we -hold out to the world in our Declaration of Independence. - -Mr. SHERMAN thought the principles of the motion, and the principles of -the bill, were inconsistent; the principle of the bill was to raise -revenue, the principle of the motion to correct a moral evil. Now, -considering it as an object of revenue, it would be unjust, because two -or three States would bear the whole burthen, while he believed they -bore their full proportion of all the rest. He was against receiving the -motion into this bill, though he had no objection to taking it up by -itself, on the principles of humanity and policy; and therefore would -vote against it if it was not withdrawn. - -Mr. AMES joined the gentleman last up; no one could suppose him -favorable to slavery; he detested it from his soul; but he had some -doubts whether imposing a duty on the importation would not have the -appearance of countenancing the practice; it was certainly a subject of -some delicacy, and no one appeared to be prepared for the discussion. He -therefore hoped the motion would be withdrawn. - -Mr. LIVERMORE was not against the principle of the motion; but in the -present case he conceived it improper. If negroes were goods, wares, or -merchandise, they came within the title of the bill; if they were not, -the bill would be inconsistent. But if they are goods, wares, or -merchandise, the five per cent. _ad valorem_ will embrace the -importation, and the duty of five per cent. is nearly equal to ten -dollars per head; so there is no occasion to add it even on the score of -revenue. - -Mr. JACKSON said, it was the fashion of the day to favor the liberty of -slaves. He would not go into a discussion of the subject; but he -believed it was capable of demonstration that they were better off in -their present situation than they would be if they were manumitted. What -are they to do if they are discharged? Work for a living? Experience has -shown us they will not. Examine what has become of those in Maryland; -many of them have been set free in that State. Did they turn themselves -to industry and useful pursuits? No, they turn out common pickpockets, -petty larceny villains. And is this mercy, forsooth, to turn them into a -way in which they must lose their lives; for when they are thrown upon -the world, void of property and connections, they cannot get their -living but by pilfering. What is to be done for compensation? Will -Virginia set all her negroes free? Will they give up the money they cost -them, and to whom? When this practice comes to be tried there, the sound -of liberty will lose those charms which make it grateful to the ravished -ear. But our slaves are not in a worse situation than they were on the -coast of Africa. It is not uncommon there for the parents to sell their -children in peace; and in war, the whole are taken and made slaves -together. In these cases, it is only a change of one slavery for -another; and are they not better here, where they have a master, bound -by the ties of interest and law, to provide for their support and -comfort in old age or infirmity, in which, if they were free, they would -sink under the pressure of woe for want of assistance? - -He would say nothing of the partiality of such a tax; it was admitted by -the avowed friends of the measure; Georgia, in particular, would be -oppressed. On this account, it would be the most odious tax Congress -could impose. - -Mr. SCHUREMAN hoped the gentleman would withdraw his motion, because the -present was not the time or place for introducing the business. He -thought it had better be brought forward in the House as a distinct -proposition. If the gentleman persisted in having the question -determined, he would move the previous question, if he was supported. - -Mr. MADISON.--I cannot concur with gentlemen who think the present an -improper time or place to enter into a discussion of the proposed -motion. If it is taken up in a separate view, we shall do the same thing -at a greater expense of time. But gentlemen say that it is improper to -connect the two objects, because they do not come within the title of -the bill; but this objection may be obviated by accommodating the title -to the contents. There may be some inconsistency in combining the ideas -which gentlemen have expressed, that is, considering the human race as a -species of property; but the evil does not arise from adopting the -clause now proposed; it is from the importation to which it relates. Our -object in enumerating persons on paper with merchandise, is to prevent -the practice of actually treating them as such, by having them in future -forming part of the cargoes of goods, wares, and merchandise to be -imported into the United States. The motion is calculated to avoid the -very evil intimated by the gentleman. - -It has been said that this tax will be partial and oppressive; but if a -fair view is taken of this subject, I think we may form a different -conclusion. But if it be partial or oppressive, are there not many -instances in which we have laid taxes of this nature? Yet are they not -thought to be justified by national policy? If any article is warranted -on this account, how much more are we authorized to proceed on this -occasion? The dictates of humanity, the principles of the people, the -national safety and happiness, and prudent policy require it of us. The -constitution has particularly called our attention to it; and of all the -articles contained in the bill before us, this is one of the last I -should be willing to make a concession upon, so far as I am at liberty -to go, according to the terms of the constitution or principles of -justice. I would not have it understood that my zeal would carry me to -disobey the inviolable commands of either. - -I understood it had been intimated, that the motion was inconsistent or -unconstitutional. I believe, sir, my worthy colleague has formed the -words with a particular reference to the constitution; any how, so far -as the duty is expressed, it perfectly accords with that instrument. If -there are any inconsistencies in it, they may be rectified. I believe -the intention is well understood, but I am far from supposing the -diction improper. If the description of the persons does not accord with -the ideas of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. JACKSON,) and his idea is -a proper one for the committee to adopt, I see no difficulty in changing -the phraseology. - -I conceive the constitution, in this particular, was formed in order -that the Government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total -prohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the sense of -America with respect to the African trade. We have liberty to impose a -tax or duty upon the importation of such persons, as any of the States -now existing shall think proper to admit; and this liberty was granted, -I presume, upon two considerations. The first was, that until the time -arrived when they might abolish the importation of slaves, they might -have an opportunity of evidencing their sentiments on the policy and -humanity of such a trade. The other was, that they might be taxed in due -proportion with other articles imported; for if the possessor will -consider them as property, of course they are of value, and ought to be -paid for. If gentlemen are apprehensive of oppression from the weight of -the tax, let them make an estimate of its proportion, and they will find -that it very little exceeds five per cent. _ad valorem_; so that they -will gain very little by having them thrown into that mass of articles; -whilst, by selecting them in the manner proposed, we shall fulfil the -prevailing expectations of our fellow-citizens, and perform our duty in -executing the purposes of the constitution. It is to be hoped, that by -expressing a national disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, -and save ourselves from reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility -ever attendant on a country filled with slaves. - -I do not wish to say any thing harsh to the hearing of gentlemen who -entertain different sentiments from me, or different sentiments from -those I represent; but if there is any one point in which it is clearly -the policy of this nation, so far as we constitutionally can, to vary -the practice obtaining under some of the State Governments, it is this. -But it is certain a majority of the States are opposed to this practice; -therefore, upon principle, we ought to discountenance it as far as is in -our power. - -If I were not afraid of being told that the Representatives of the -several States are the best able to judge of what is proper and -conducive to their particular prosperity, I should venture to say that -it is as much the interest of Georgia and South Carolina as of any in -the Union. Every addition they receive to their number of slaves, tends -to weaken and render them less capable of self-defence. In case of -hostilities with foreign nations, they will be the means of inviting -attack, instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the -General Government to protect every part of the empire against danger, -as well internal as external. Every thing, therefore, which tends to -increase this danger, though it may be a local affair, yet, if it -involves national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every part of -the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of those -charged with the general administration of the Government. I hope, in -making these observations, I shall not be understood to mean that a -proper attention ought not to be paid to the local opinions and -circumstances of any part of the United States, or that the particular -representatives are not best able to judge of the sense of their -immediate constituents. - -If we examine the proposed measure by the agreement there is between it -and the existing State laws, it will show us that it is patronized by a -very respectable part of the Union. I am informed that South Carolina -has prohibited the importation of slaves for several years yet to come. -We have the satisfaction, then, of reflecting that we do nothing more -than their own laws do at this moment. This is not the case with one -State. I am sorry that her situation is such as to seem to require a -population of this nature; but it is impossible, in the nature of -things, to consult the national good, without doing what we do not wish -to do to some particular part. - -Perhaps gentlemen contend against the introduction of the clause on too -slight grounds. If it does not comport with the title of the bill, alter -the latter. If it does not conform to the precise terms of the -constitution, amend it. But if it will tend to delay the whole bill, -that, perhaps, will be the best reason for making it the object of a -separate one. If this be the sense of the committee, I shall submit. - -Mr. GERRY thought all duties ought to be laid as equal as possible. He -had endeavored to enforce this principle yesterday, but without the -success he wished for; he was bound by the principle of justice, -therefore, to vote for the proposition. But if the committee were -desirous of considering the subject fully by itself, he had no -objection; but he thought when gentlemen laid down a principle, they -ought to support it generally. - -Mr. BURKE said, gentlemen were contending for nothing; that the value of -a slave averaged about eighty pounds, and the duty on that sum at five -per cent. would be ten dollars. As Congress could go no further than -that sum, he conceived it made no difference whether they were -enumerated or left in the common mass. - -Mr. MADISON.--If we contend for nothing, the gentlemen who are opposed -to us do not contend for a great deal. But the question is, whether the -five per cent. _ad valorem_, on all articles imported, will have any -operation at all upon the introduction of slaves, unless we make a -particular enumeration on this account. The collector may mistake; for -he would not presume to apply the term goods, wares, and merchandise to -any person whatsoever. But if that general definition of goods, wares, -and merchandise, is supposed to include African slaves, why may we not -particularly enumerate them, and lay the duty pointed out by the -constitution, which, as gentlemen tell us, is no more than five per -cent. upon their value. This will not increase the burthen upon any; but -it will be that manifestation of our sense expected by our constituents, -and demanded by justice and humanity. - -Mr. BLAND had no doubt of the propriety or good policy of this measure. -He had made up his mind upon it; he wished slaves had never been -introduced into America. But if it was impossible at this time to cure -the evil, he was very willing to join in any measures that would prevent -its extending further. He had some doubts whether the prohibitory laws -of the States were not in part repealed. Those who had endeavored to -discountenance this trade by laying a duty on the importation, were -prevented by the constitution from continuing such regulation, which -declares that no State shall lay any impost or duties on imports. If -this were the case, and he suspected pretty strongly that it was, the -necessity of adopting the proposition of his colleague was more -apparent. - -Mr. SHERMAN said the constitution does not consider these persons as -species of property; it speaks of them as persons, and says, that a tax -or duty may be imposed on the importation of them into any State which -shall permit the same, but they have no power to prohibit such -importation for twenty years. But Congress have power to declare upon -what terms persons coming into the United States shall be entitled to -citizenship; the rule of naturalization must, however, be uniform. He -was convinced there were others who ought to be regulated in this -particular, the importation of whom was of an evil tendency; he meant -convicts particularly. He thought that some regulation respecting them -was also proper; but it being a different subject, it ought to be taken -up in a different manner. - -Mr. MADISON was led to believe, from the observation that had fallen -from the gentlemen, that it would be best to make this the subject of a -distinct bill: he, therefore, wished his colleague would withdraw his -motion, and move in the House for leave to bring in a bill on the same -principles. - -Mr. PARKER consented to withdraw his motion, under a conviction that the -House was fully satisfied of its propriety. He knew very well that these -persons were neither goods nor wares, but they were treated as articles -of merchandise. Although he wished to get rid of this part of his -property, yet he should not consent to deprive other people of theirs by -any act of his, without their consent. - -The committee rose, reported progress, and the House adjourned. - - -FRIDAY, May 15. - -Mr. WHITE, one of the Representatives from Virginia, presented to the -House a resolve of the Legislature of that State, of the 27th of -December, 1788, offering to the acceptance of the Federal Government, -ten miles square of territory, or any lesser quantity, in any part of -that State, which Congress may choose, to be occupied and possessed by -the United States, as the seat of the Federal Government; which was -read, and ordered to lie on the table. - -An engrossed bill for laying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandises, -imported into the United States, was read a third time, and, on a motion -made, ordered to be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House -immediately. - -The House, accordingly, resolved itself into the said committee; and, -after some time, the committee rose, and reported the bill with -amendments, which were agreed to by the House. - -Mr. MADISON made a motion further to amend the said bill, by adding to -the end thereof a clause for limiting the time of its continuance. - -Mr. AMES expressed a doubt of the propriety of the motion. He thought -the bill ought to be commensurate with the wants of Government. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS.--For want of a proper knowledge of the true situation of -our affairs, we are unable to determine how far the present provision is -equal to the necessities of the Union, and this circumstance will tend -to add considerably to our embarrassment in limiting the duration. If we -make the time too short to supply the public wants, we shall not hold -out to the public creditors a sufficient security for the punctual -payment of their debts. If we should want to raise money by a loan, we -could only expect it according to the duration of the fund: this makes -the present motion a subject of serious consideration. Not that I object -to what the gentleman has in contemplation, but I wish such language to -be used, that shall designate the continuation of the law to be till the -wants are supplied and thereafter cease. I am not of opinion that it -should be for half a century, because I hope our national debt will be -extinguished in much less time; but really I must confess, at this -moment, I feel considerable embarrassment in determining in my mind the -period for which it should exist, whether an enumerated term of years, -or a general declaration during the continuance of the public wants. - -Mr. LEE thought the operation of the law could not be well understood; -that it was a system of experiment, and ought to be temporary, in order -that a future Congress might make such amendments as time should -discover to be necessary. How perfect soever the theory might appear, -practice might prove it otherwise; he therefore wished its operation -limited for three or five years. He thought it would be wise in the -House to adopt the motion, in order to prevent any injustice which a -permanent and imperfect regulation might have on posterity. He expected -this would beget confidence in the Government, which was to him a very -desirable object. - -Mr. WHITE.--The constitution having authorized the House of -Representatives alone to originate money bills, places an important -trust in our hands, which, as their protectors, we ought not to part -with. I do not mean to imply that the Senate are less to be trusted than -this House; but the constitution, no doubt for wise purposes, has given -the immediate Representatives of the People a control over the whole -Government in this particular, which for their interest they ought not -to let out of their hands. Besides, the constitution says further, that -no appropriation shall be for a longer term than two years, which of -consequence limits the duration of the revenue law to that period; when, -if it is found conducive to the public welfare, it may be continued by -the legislators appointed by the people, and who alone are authorized to -declare upon this question in the first instance. - -Mr. LIVERMORE hoped but little time would be taken up in the discussion -of this subject; the people were anxiously waiting the result of their -deliberations; beside the impost was daily slipping away. He had no -doubt of the propriety of the motion, because from the acknowledged -imperfections of the bill, it would never do for a permanent system. If -the people, who consider themselves subjected to very high and very -unequal duties, find no termination of the grievance, they will -immediately adopt measures in their defence, to thwart the views of -Government; but if they understand the law as temporary, and only passed -in order to gain experience for forming a better system, they will be -induced to give it fair play, and bear the burthen without complaint, -trusting to the wisdom and justice of Congress for such alterations as -practice may show to be necessary. - -Besides, the objects for which the revenue is now wanting, will decrease -annually; this will be an additional reason for limiting its duration. -He was not for a very short term; he thought five, seven, or ten years, -would be more eligible than two or three, but he was decidedly against -making it perpetual. - -Mr. SINNICKSON had understood, that one of the objects of the bill was -the re-establishment of public credit; but it never could be imagined -that a law, limited to three or four years, could do this in any great -degree; nor could any advantage arise from loans negotiated and -terminated within such a short period. Under these impressions, he -conceived the motion struck at the credit of the new Government, which -the people had just established. - -Mr. MADISON.--When he offered this amendment to the bill, he thought its -propriety was so obvious and striking, that it would meet no opposition. -To pass a bill, not limited in duration, which was to draw revenue from -the pockets of the people, appeared to be dangerous in the -administration of any Government; he hoped, therefore, the House would -not be less cautious in this particular than other nations are, who -profess to act upon sound principles. He imagined it might be considered -by their constituents as incompatible with the spirit of the -constitution, and dangerous to republican principles, to pass such a law -unlimited in its duration. - -Besides the restoration of public credit, he thought the act had in view -the encouragement of a particular description of people, which might -lead them into enterprises of a peculiar nature, for the protection of -which the public faith seemed to be pledged. But would gentlemen infer -from hence, that no alteration ought to take place if the manufactures -were well established? The subject appeared to him in a twofold point of -view; first, to provide for the exigencies of Government, and second, -for the establishment of public credit; but he thought both these -objects could be obtained without making the bill perpetual. If the -Government showed a proper attention to the punctual performance of its -engagements, it would obtain the latter; the other would be secured by -making provision as the occasion demanded. If the bill was to be made -perpetual, it would be continued after the purpose for which it was -adopted had ceased; the error would in this case be irremediable; -whereas, if its limitation was determined, it would always be in the -power of the Government to make it commensurate with what the public -debts and contingencies required. - -The constitution, as had already been observed, places the power in the -House of originating money bills. The principal reason why the -constitution had made this distinction was, because they were chosen by -the people, and supposed to be best acquainted with their interests and -ability. In order to make them more particularly acquainted with these -objects, the democratic branch of the Legislature consisted of a greater -number, and were chosen for a shorter period, so that they might revert -more frequently to the mass of the people. Now, if a revenue law was -made perpetual, however unequal its operation might be, it would be out -of the power of this House to effect an alteration; for if the President -chose to object to the measure, it would require two-thirds of both -Houses to carry it. Even if the House of Representatives were unanimous -in their opinion that the law ought to be repealed, they would not be -able to carry it, unless a great majority appeared in the Senate also. - -Mr. BOUDINOT said, the time mentioned by the former Congress, and to -which they requested the concurrence of the several States, was, that -the impost duties might be continued for twenty-five years. This request -was made on full consideration, and they did not think it was more than -sufficient to discharge the principal and interest of the national debt. -He concluded, therefore, that it was better to let the law remain -without limitation; because when they found the purposes for which it -was intended were accomplished, it would be in the power of Congress to -repeal the law. - -Mr. LAWRENCE thought the present was a subject of great importance, and -he lamented it was not brought forward at an earlier period, because he -feared the time would not allow that full discussion or deliberation -which ought to take place. He wished also that the House was acquainted -with the necessities of the United States, that so they might make -provision accordingly; but these two points were mere matter of -speculation as to their precise amount; yet he believed it was agreed on -all hands, that the ways and means provided in this bill for the support -of Government, the payment of interest and instalments of the foreign -and domestic debt, were, so far as agreed to, inadequate to the object. -If this be the case, the public debt must accumulate; and as we do not -know when the time may come for its extinguishment, the provision cannot -be limited; for every gentleman will agree, that if the demand for -revenue be increased, the fund ought to be commensurate to the object. -Is there any time when the civil list will cease its demand? If there is -not, there will be a perpetual call for revenue. He thought it -absolutely impossible to provide for the payment of the debts, if the -bill was limited to two, three, or four years; such a precarious -provision would never tend to the re-establishment of public credit. If -the bill was not limited, it would always be in the power of the -Legislature to lower the duties, or make such other alteration as might, -upon experience, be thought beneficial to the community; whereas if the -bill were limited, it would be thought improper to make any amendments -during the term for which it is enacted, although those amendments -appeared indispensably necessary. But why is this degree of caution -necessary? Will not the administration of public affairs be conducted in -future by representatives as good as ourselves? Will they have less -wisdom or virtue, to discover and pursue the good of their -fellow-citizens than we have? - -Mr. BLAND.--Our public credit consists of two branches: first, as it -respects the evidences of our debt, in the hands of those from whom we -have had money or services; and secondly, as it respects our ability to -borrow in future. Now, the first branch of public credit depends upon -the punctuality with which the interest is paid; but this in foreign -nations, does not depend upon the limitation of the act. Do gentlemen -suppose our laws, like those of the Medes and Persians, unchangeable? -Can any person, who has read our constitution, believe that it is in our -power to pass a law without limitation? No, it is impossible. Every -person knows that a future Congress may repeal this and every other law -we pass, whenever they think proper. The constitution had particularly -intrusted the House of Representatives with the power of raising money; -great care was necessary to preserve this privilege inviolate; it was -one of the greatest securities the people had for their liberties under -this Government. Moreover, the importance of the House itself depended -upon holding the purse-strings; if they once part with this power, they -would become insignificant, and the other branch of the Legislature -might become altogether independent of them. For these reasons, he was -in favor of the motion of his honorable colleague, and hoped it would -obtain. - -Mr. GERRY.--There seems to be a great variety of opinions entertained -by gentlemen on this question. But he thought they would all agree on -these two points: first, that there were very great demands upon the -federal treasury; and, secondly, that they had no kind of documents to -show what they were, or what the revenue bill would produce. Under these -circumstances, gentlemen must agree, that there is danger of passing a -law that would operate oppressively, and without reason. There was also -danger of erring in the mode of collecting, for want of experience to -guide them. From these considerations, there was no doubt but the act -would require the reconsideration of the Legislature in a short time; -there may be applications from the people of all quarters to repeal a -part of it. But what are their immediate representatives to do, in case -the bill be made perpetual? They may be convinced that a repeal would be -just and necessary; but it may not be in their power to remedy the -grievances of their constituents, however desirous they may be of doing -so; for, although this House may originate and carry a bill unanimously -through for the repeal, yet it will be in the power of the President, -and the minority of the other branch of Congress, to prevent a repeal. - -Mr. HUNTINGDON thought it easy to see the danger of making this bill -perpetual: besides parting with the power which the constitution gave to -the House of Representatives, in authorizing them solely to originate -money bills, there would be another inconvenience, which was, extending -the revenue beyond what the nature of the public debt required. The -foreign debt was payable by instalments; it was saying nothing to allege -that the debt would accumulate, because the United States must make -provision for the annual extinguishment of a part. If the revenue, -arising from the impost, be insufficient for this purpose, recourse must -be had to some other fund, which will enable us to perform the -engagements of the late Congress. It is true the debt is large, and will -take time to pay it off, but he had no doubt but it would be done -according to contract, and with honor to the Union. How, then, can -gentlemen suppose the revenue ought to be perpetual, in order to be -commensurate with the object? If they contemplated the contraction of -more debts in future, the supposition might be true; but he saw no -reason why gentlemen should extend their views so far. He thought if a -future war, or some other untoward circumstance, should increase the -national debt, it ought to be provided for by the Government who were -acquainted with the necessity. He thought the House ought to consider -seriously before they parted with their powers; it was easy for them to -pass a bill to give power, but it was difficult to recall it. He had -seen many instances of this kind; one in particular in the State from -which he came, where the Legislature had given the appointment of -sheriffs, and some other little matters, out of their hands, and had -been a long time endeavoring to get it back; but they had not been able -to obtain it. He had no suspicions of any character in the Senate, but -the constitution had made that body in some degree perpetual, to obtain -a permanency in the laws; if, therefore, this revenue bill had once -their approbation, they might be inclined to continue it, even against -the sentiments of the people and of the House. Though he was not against -trusting the gentlemen who now composed the Senate, he was against -trusting their successors. - -Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, was also in favor of the clause; he -conceived the only reason of weight urged against it, related to the -restoration of public credit; but he thought every person possessed of -the stock or debt of the United States would have the same feelings and -reasoning as the House; they would know that their demands depended upon -a higher source than Congress, and might be sure that we would do our -duty in making particular provision. If Congress neglected this, one -part of the creditors would compel them. If it was found that the United -States were not disposed to pay their debts, foreigners would find the -means to make them. Taking it therefore for granted, that Congress would -always provide for these objects, he would proceed to consider what -effect might arise from a permanent or temporary provision. If the -latter were made, the creditors would honor us for our exertions, and -confide in our continuing to provide for them in the manner we should -find upon experience most convenient to the community. If the system was -declared to be a perpetual provision for the payment of their interest, -it would give no hope, in the first place, for the redemption of the -capital; and in the second, if Congress were to alter it, and which, in -all probability they shortly must, the security would be impaired, and -an essential injury done to the public credit, which we are so desirous -to revive. - -Mr. AMES considered this as a very important question; and in order that -his own mind might be fully enlightened, he had listened with the most -unwearied attention to the arguments urged on both sides; but he was far -from being satisfied that the motion was necessary or proper for the -House to adopt. - -Gentlemen tell us they are willing to make the revenue commensurate with -the debt. If they do this, all the inconveniences resulting from the -imperfection of the system will be entailed upon us for a number of -years. Other gentlemen mention a year or two for its limitation. Can the -House listen seriously to such a proposition? If we were to tell our -creditors that we are making provision for them for one year, would it -tend to inspire them with confidence in our wisdom or justice? Would our -foreign creditors believe we were scrupulously fulfilling our -engagements with them? No: nothing less than a fixed, permanent system, -can beget confidence or give security. An illusory system of one or two -years' duration would engender distrust; its very visage would make the -public suspect deception. If we do not mean to deceive, why not make the -provision commensurate to the occasion? His idea of a temporary act was -_pro hac vice_, by way of experiment: but he thought the House could not -make the experiment with this bill, because the public credit would not -admit of it. If this act be made for one year, will it not be a -considerable expense to the public by going over all the ground again, -which had taken the House such a length of time to discuss? - -What has been the conduct of Great Britain, in relation to her funds? -What has carried the credit of that kingdom to a superior eminence, but -the attention she has paid to public credit? He considered these -advantages as having made that nation rich and powerful. He believed a -like conduct on our part would produce the same consequences, because -our Government is of such a nature as to give the public creditors the -greatest security they could wish. If the revenue is appropriated, and -the law for collecting it is without any limitation, the funds cannot be -taken away without a positive act of injustice, to which both Houses of -the Legislature must assent by a majority of two-thirds, or three -independent parties must unite. It was therefore three to one in favor -of the public creditor, that the funds appropriated to his use would not -be annihilated. Under these circumstances, Government might more safely -be trusted. This, he observed, was not the case under despotic princes; -their will alone could tear away the security of the subject. Under a -pure democracy, the case was almost as bad; no confidence could be -placed, because the caprice and whim of one body could dictate a change. - -Mr. PAGE expressed his surprise to find gentlemen opposed to the -limitation of the bill, who had complained so much of its imperfections. -He thought a measure of the kind now proposed absolutely necessary to -reconcile these gentlemen to particular parts of the bill. For his own -part, he had objections to some articles, and for that reason, if there -was no other, he would be in favor of the limitation. It had been -frequently asserted that half the revenue would be lost by smuggling. -Can this, then, he would ask, be a bill proper to perpetuate, or fit for -the restoration of the credit of the United States? He asked gentlemen -whether they would lend a hand to rivet round the necks of their -fellow-citizens a regulation which experience had convinced them was -unjust, unequal, and oppressive? Yet the gentleman from Massachusetts -(Mr. AMES) had declared that experience had convinced him that at least -one particular article was subjected to a duty of this kind. - -Mr. GERRY asked his colleague if he advocated carrying the taxes to such -an extent as to accumulate sums in the treasury for which the United -States had no particular use? Yet if this revenue law were made -perpetual, it would collect money into the public coffers after the -national debt was paid. This would be such a temptation to the Executive -to possess itself by force of the treasures of the nation, as he hoped -would never be put in its way. If our commerce and population increased, -this revenue would increase in the same proportion. He could not, -therefore, bear the idea of all this money being collected into one -spot, unless there was an absolute demand for it. He thought it -incompatible with the liberty and security of the people, and therefore -hoped the House would agree to a short limitation. - -Mr. MADISON, for the sake of accommodation, would make another -proposition. He was extremely sorry to differ with gentlemen about -modes, when their object appeared to be the same. He thought the spirit -of the constitution and the structure of the Government rendered it -improper to pass a perpetual revenue law. The arguments had been clear -on this point; but as there was an evident propriety in making the means -commensurate to the occasion, he was inclined to give the bill such a -perpetuity as would answer the purpose of providing for the public debt -and restoring the national credit. He thought this might be done by -modifying his motion so as to refer to the collection bill; for he -hoped, before that passed, the House would be able to ascertain the -appropriation, and could limit it accordingly. The words he would -propose were, that this act should not continue and be in force longer -than the ---- day of ----, unless otherwise limited by the act providing -for the appropriation. As he had heard it intimated that the yeas and -nays would be called on this question, he was desirous of rendering the -clause as satisfactory as possible. - -Mr. AMES could not bear to lie under the imputation of inconsistency, -with which he was charged, inasmuch as he contended against the -limitation of a bill he had opposed as oppressive in some of its parts. -He believed the amendment now offered was new to almost every gentleman. -For his part, he had always supposed it was intended as a permanent -system. He remembered many gentlemen made use of this expression, -through the various debates which had taken place in the several stages -of the bill. He had understood it in this light, and had therefore -combated, with some degree of energy, such parts as appeared to him -impolitic or unjust. He imagined the gentlemen on both sides had labored -to make the bill as perfect as possible, with a view of making an -equitable provision for the public exigencies, which should affect all -parts of the Union with the greatest degree of impartiality. - -Mr. SHERMAN observed, that when Congress applied to the several States -for the five per cent. impost, they judged it would enable them to -extinguish the national debt in twenty-five years; but, in addition to -this fund, they expected to make annual requisitions on the States, for -one and a half million of dollars at least; so that gentlemen could not -expect the whole to be paid by this single fund in a short time. He -wished a limitation to the law in general terms, such as until the debt, -foreign and domestic, is discharged. He thought a short term would made -an unfavorable impression upon the minds of the public creditors, and -tend in a great measure to cloud the happy prospects that began to -brighten the political hemisphere of this country. - -Mr. GERRY expressed an intention of calling the yeas and nays if he was -supported, because he thought it a question in which the essential -interests of the people were deeply involved. - -Mr. LAWRENCE said, he held his present opinion upon the purest -principles of patriotism, and an ardent love for his country's -happiness. He had no objection to the yeas and nays being taken, as he -was not inclined to disguise his sentiments. - -Mr. PAGE was glad the yeas and nays were called, as it would give -gentlemen an opportunity of showing to their constituents their -approbation of a measure calculated to secure the blessings of liberty -to themselves and posterity. - -Several members rose to speak on this question, when Mr. AMES moved the -adjournment, fearing gentlemen would grow warm upon the question. - -Whereupon, the House adjourned. - - -SATURDAY, May 16. - -Mr. SENEY, from Maryland, presented to the House an act of the -Legislature of that State, offering to the acceptance of Congress ten -miles square of territory, in any part of the said State, for the seat -of the Federal Government, which was read and ordered to lie on the -table. - - -_Duties on Imports._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the amendment proposed yesterday -to the bill for laying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandises imported -into the United States, and the said amendment read as follows: "And be -it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that this act shall be in -force until the ---- day of ----, and from thence until the end of the -next session of Congress which shall happen thereafter." - -The question was called for, and Mr. LAWRENCE required the ayes and -noes. - -Mr. JACKSON wished to say a few words on the bill. The ayes and noes -being called for, he conceived it his duty to state his reasons for his -vote. He declared himself to be in favor of the limitation, for the -reasons offered by honorable gentlemen yesterday. He said he had as -ardent a desire to re-establish public credit, and place it on a good -footing, as any member on that floor, yet he did not think making this -law perpetual would have that tendency. He had no doubt but every -subsequent Legislature would be equally desirous of doing justice to -the creditors of the Union, and he therefore felt no uneasiness in -leaving such provision to be made by them. If the next Legislature were -disposed to violate the public honor, would the law now under -consideration stand in their way? For his part, he could not conceive it -an insuperable bar. He believed there was not a member who liked every -part of the bill. Under these circumstances, what was to be expected but -complaints from the people, and a consequent repeal of the bill? He did -not wish to insinuate that the Senate would be so depraved as to oppose -the public voice, but they might misunderstand it; they were a permanent -body, and might be more inclined to support what they considered the -honor of the Government than the convenience of the people. - -The House of Representatives appeared to him to be the body best -calculated to know and feel the interests of their immediate -constituents; they ought, therefore, to preserve the power of redressing -grievances, and not give too much into the hands of the Senate. He -acknowledged the claims which those that fought and bled for their -country had upon the justice of Congress; but he did not believe that -class of citizens would complain or murmur at this House for keeping the -purse strings in their hands, when it was considered necessary to the -security and happiness of the people. - -Mr. WHITE did not see the necessity of calling the yeas and nays: he -thought the measure was intended to have one of these two objects, -either to show one part of the House had mistaken the interest of their -country, and ought to be held up to posterity, in order that their -memories may be charged with their want of knowledge; or that there is a -part of this House who think themselves more wise and patriotic than the -majority. He never called the yeas and nays in his life, nor believed he -ever should; but he was willing to have his vote appear, in all cases, -when gentlemen thought proper to perpetuate the decision of the House in -that way. On this occasion he would vote in favor of the amendment, and -would endeavor to answer the objections, which, if well founded, would -be a subject of great uneasiness in his mind, considering how he -intended to give his vote. - -He would now proceed to examine, whether rendering this law perpetual -would be a wise and prudent measure. It had been well observed by the -gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. JACKSON,) that every part of the law would -bear harder on some States than on others; perhaps there was no State in -the Union which would not be in some degree dissatisfied. He could -perceive, by the sentiments of gentlemen in this House, that the -burthens would be peculiarly felt; under these impressions, gentlemen -have expressed themselves more warmly than perhaps they ought. There had -been predictions of the most dangerous consequences of high duties, -which he would not repeat; if these dangers were not imaginary, would it -be prudent in the House, to risk these consequences, and make these -dangers unavoidable by rendering the law perpetual. - -Much pains had been taken to impose the burthens as equally as possible. -If the duty on molasses bears hard upon one State, the tonnage duty -would bear equally so upon others. But still it is probable, that there -are unequal pressures laid by the bill, which experience alone could -enable the Legislature to alter to the satisfaction of all parties. The -system was great, complex, and comprehensive; it embraces commerce, -manufactures, agriculture, finance, and, in short, every thing in which -a nation can be concerned. Will it be prudent, then, under our present -disadvantages, and without information, to enact a law affecting the -highest interests of the people, which can never be repealed but by the -consent of three independent bodies? Gentlemen have told us, that no -valuable purpose can be answered by making the law temporary; now, he -thought a valuable purpose could be answered by it. The two Houses of -Congress, with the qualified negative of the President, formed the -legislative power of the United States; they are distinct powers to be -exercised by both branches of the Legislature. The House had been told, -on a former occasion, that the Senate possessed greater powers than the -Representatives. He admitted that, in some instances, they had greater -powers; but with respect to revenue matters, they certainly had less, -and very properly so. Shall we then give up to a body, who has already a -superiority over us, those superior powers which we possess relative to -revenue? A perpetual system would give the Senate greater advantages -than constitutionally they ought to enjoy. He thought it of little -consequence for the House to possess the right of originating money -bills, if those money bills were made perpetual. The exercise of this -right would be lost, and he thought it necessary that every part of -Government should feel itself dependent upon the people. We have been -told, with truth, that the Senate are a virtuous body; they are so, and -he hoped would remain so, for ages yet to come, nay for ever; and, in -his legislative capacity, he would act upon no other supposition. But -still it ought to be remembered, that they would always be men, and -liable to all the errors, frailties, and infirmities, with the rest of -their fellow-mortals; besides, they were constituted in some measure for -purposes to which the other branch was incompetent; while this House was -constituted for purposes for which the Senate is unequal. It is a -well-grounded republican maxim, that taxation and representation should -depend each on the other. The people should be taxed only by -representatives chosen for that purpose. This principle was written in -the hearts of our British ancestors; it had been maintained by the best -blood of our citizens, and he hoped it would descend with the fullest -energy to our posterity. What, said he, are we about to do? A great -branch of revenue, indeed the only branch, to which an application is -now proper, or expected by the people, is about to be put out of our -hands for ever; for it would not be in the power of this House, or any -future House, to annihilate those funds without the consent of the -Senate and the concurrence of the President. Now, the Senate are not an -equal representation of the people; in that body the States have equal -numbers, while, in this House, the representation is proportioned to -their population. Delaware sends one, Georgia three, and Virginia ten. -Is it possible, in the nature of things, that two Senators can be as -well acquainted with the feelings and interest of the people of -Virginia, as ten men selected from among them, and taken from the -several parts of the State? Will the people be satisfied to have that -body able to continue a revenue system which their immediate -representatives think oppressive, or perhaps unnecessary? Certainly they -would not; whatever the wisdom and virtue of the Senate may be, he was -convinced they were not competent to those peculiar objects for which a -just representation was absolutely necessary. The Senate, it is true, is -not a House of Lords; they do not possess any properties materially -distinguishing them from the members of the House of Representatives; -but, though the distinction is not so striking in the one case as in the -other, yet it was nevertheless real. The House of Lords is created by -the King, and is a permanent body; the Senate is chosen by the State -Legislatures, and though the individuals have not a permanency in -office, yet the body never ceases to exist. These circumstances, in the -constitution of the Senate, afforded a powerful objection to the new -system of Government, and the people would never have adopted it, had -they supposed that the powers of this body were unlimited in continuing -a system of taxation, which had at any time met the approbation of their -particular representatives.[23] - -Mr. TUCKER did not think it necessary to give his opinion otherwise than -by his vote, because gentlemen, who had yesterday delivered their -sentiments in favor of the clause, had anticipated what he had to say. -But as he found himself influenced by the call for the ayes and noes on -this question, he should be induced to state some of his reasons in -favor of the amendment. He said, he was glad the ayes and noes had been -called, and if it had not been done by any other gentleman, he should -have conceived himself bound to have done it; because he did not think -himself at liberty, but on very particular occasions, to make a law -perpetual. He wished to see a doctrine established, never to pass a law -without limitation, unless justified by some extraordinary -circumstances. Nothing, he thought, could ever justify such an act but -the immutability of the object, and the absolute necessity and -simplicity of every thing relating to it. If the House passed a -perpetual revenue law, which had not an immutable object, they would -abridge their own power, and destroy one of the great privileges of the -people. Every bill of this nature, more or less, narrows the powers of -this House, and throws it into the hands of the Executive and a minority -of the Senate; for it is to be considered, that whenever we pass a bill -on any subject, every matter in that bill contained is given up to the -Executive and one-third of the Senators, so much so that it is out of -the power of this House, even with a unanimous vote, to recover any part -of it. - -Mr. SYLVESTER was in favor of the limitation clause. A good deal had -been said in the House respecting the jarring interests of the several -States. It had been confessed on all hands, that this was an -experimental law: he viewed it as such, and expected, in the course of a -few years, the Legislature would be able to discover the errors of this -day. But what advantage can result from their knowledge, if they have -not power to make the necessary alterations, or to build up a new system -more perfect than the old? He had examined the annals of history, but -was unable to discover that any nation had ever established a perpetual -revenue law. He imagined gentlemen would admit these reasons to be -sufficient to warrant the vote they were about to give. - -Mr. SINNICKSON did not expect this was to be a perpetual law, incapable -of alteration; but he wished to see it a permanent system. The idea of a -temporary system was long ago said to be out of the contemplation of the -House. He should only observe, in addition to this, that our credit -depended essentially upon what should be done at this time. He thought -if the revenue existed merely upon the breath of the Legislature, for -one or two years at a time, we should never attain that object. He -thought that the public good required something substantial to be done -in favor of those who had lent the public money in the hour of distress. - -Mr. BOUDINOT thought himself obliged to say a few words more, in order -to justify the part he should take in the division of the House on this -question. He conceived the manner in which the motion was brought before -the House, after the bill was supposed to be gone through, did not give -such opportunity for the members to consider the subject as its -importance seemed to require, and which might have been had if it had -been brought forward at an earlier period. - -If, said he, we are to have the measures of the Parliament of Great -Britain hung about our necks in all our public proceedings, and -observations from their practice perpetually sounding in our ears, that -practice ought to be defined and established. He believed that in the -whole volumes of the statute law, there was not one single revenue act -to be found with a limitation. He believed that the revenue laws, passed -fifty, sixty, eighty, and near a hundred years ago, in that kingdom, -existed at the present moment. We have long seen and been convinced of -the infirmities of the former confederation, and shall we now rivet -those infirmities upon the present constitution? Are we never to stand -upon a certain and solid foundation? Is not our public credit totally -gone? Has not experience convinced us that the loss of it would have -been our total destruction, if the generous exertions we have lately -made had not revived some degree of confidence in our future measures? -Are we not so deeply in debt as to give us reason to believe that it -will require many years to emancipate ourselves? If this is the case, -will a revenue law for one or two years bring that relief which is -expected? Will this prevent an increase of the public debt? Will it -restore value to the evidences of that debt held by our creditors? He -would ask any man, whether, if the United States were in the situation -in which they were last war, he would be induced to lend money upon a -temporary and inadequate fund provided for two years? He believed the -answer would be in the negative. - -Mr. MADISON withdrew his motion in order to introduce another, which he -hoped would reconcile both sides of the House. He joined those gentlemen -who opposed the clause in thinking that one or two years would be a -period insufficient to answer the purposes in contemplation. If the -House agree to the clause he would substitute for the one just -withdrawn, he would move to fill the blank with a more distant day. His -motion was, that this act shall not continue in force after the ---- day -of ---- unless otherwise provided in the act for the appropriation of -the revenue. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS seconded the motion. - -Mr. SHERMAN liked this motion better than the other. Although he was in -favor of leaving the law at large, he would vote for this clause, if the -blanks were filled up with a sufficient time to accomplish those objects -which the Government had in view in providing revenue. - -Mr. AMES thought the question would recur when the appropriation or -collecting bill came before them; he would rather, for his own part, -decide the question at this moment, than consume the time of the House -with another debate. Besides the House was not in possession of an act -for appropriating the revenue; such a measure might never be agreed to; -therefore he hoped the decision would take place at this time rather -than be evaded. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS was of opinion, that this revenue ought to be -appropriated to the payment of the public debts; what were the views of -other gentlemen he could not say. He was nevertheless in favor of -limiting the law, and that upon constitutional principles, though he -wished it commensurate to its object. Gentlemen had said a great deal -respecting the imperfection of the system, that it was the effect of -compromise; but nevertheless, he thought it as free from defects as it -was possible a revenue system could be formed with such materials as the -House possessed; but if it was imperfect, he did not see the -difficulties some gentlemen mentioned, in altering and amending it when -experience shall have pointed out its defects. - -Mr. BOUDINOT acquiesced in the motion now brought forward for the sake -of accommodation, although he thought the bill would stand better -without any limitation clause whatever. - -Mr. PAGE was against the latter part of this clause. It had been justly -said, that the bill would be oppressive; but, from the necessity of the -times, the people will submit to it. Shall we not let them see the end -of their burthen in the law itself? Are they to look into another bill -for that purpose? Perhaps after the Senate have agreed to this act, they -may oppose the limitation in the subsequent one; they may insist upon -having this in perpetuity, and then the object which the House have in -view will be defeated. - -Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, moved a division of the question. - -Mr. LEE wished to strike out that part of the motion which related to -the exception. - -Mr. LIVERMORE seconded Mr. LEE. - -The question was put, and that part of the clause lost. - -The question now stood as originally introduced to the House. - -The previous question was then demanded by five members: Shall the main -question be now put? And on the question, shall the main question be now -put? it was resolved in the affirmative. - -And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the -amendment proposed to the said bill, it was resolved in the -affirmative--ayes 41, noes 8. - -The ayes and noes being called for by one-fifth of the members present: - -Those who voted in the affirmative, are, - - Messrs. Abraham Baldwin, Egbert Benson, Theodorick Bland, - Ædanus Burke, Daniel Carroll, Isaac Coles, Benjamin Contee, - Thomas Fitzsimons, William Floyd, George Gale, Elbridge - Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, Samuel Griffin, - Jonathan Grout, John Hathorn, Daniel Heister, Benjamin - Huntington, James Jackson, Richard Bland Lee, George - Leonard, Samuel Livermore, James Madison, junior, Andrew - Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, John Page, Josiah Parker, George - Partridge, Jeremiah Van Rensselaer, Joshua Seney, Thomas - Scott, William Smith, William Smith, of South Carolina, - Jonathan Sturgis, Peter Sylvester, Jonathan Trumbull, Thos. - Tudor Tucker, John Vining, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander - White, and Henry Wynkoop. - -Those who voted in the negative, are, - - Messrs. Fisher Ames, Elias Boudinot, Lambert Cadwalader, - George Clymer, John Lawrence, Roger Sherman, Thomas - Sinnickson, and George Thatcher. - -The clause being added, it was agreed to fill the blank so as to read -the first day of June, 1796. - -_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, be engrossed, and -read the third time to-day.[24] - - -MONDAY, May 18. - - _Resolved_, That leave be given to bring in a bill - concerning the importation of certain persons into the - United States, prior to the year 1808, and that Mr. PARKER, - Mr. SINNICKSON, and Mr. MUHLENBERG, do prepare and bring in - the same. - - -TUESDAY, May 19. - -_Executive Departments._ - -On motion of Mr. BOUDINOT, the House resolved itself into a Committee of -the whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--I rise, Mr. Chairman, with diffidence, to introduce a -subject to the consideration of the committee, which I had hopes would -have been brought forward by an abler hand; the pressing necessity of it -must alone be my excuse. The great executive departments which were in -existence under the late confederation, are now at an end, at least so -far as not to be able to conduct the business of the United States. If -we take up the present constitution, we shall find it contemplates -departments of an executive nature in aid of the President: it then -remains for us to carry this intention into effect, which I take it will -be best done by settling principles for organizing them in this place, -and afterwards appoint a select committee to bring in a bill for the -same. - -I need say little to convince gentlemen of the necessity which presses -us into a pursuit of this measure. They know that our national debt is -considerable; the interest on our foreign loans, and the instalments -due, amount to two millions of dollars. This arrearage, together with -the domestic debt, is of great magnitude, and it will be attended with -the most dreadful consequences to let these affairs run into confusion -and ruin, for want of proper regulations to keep them in order. - -I shall move the committee therefore to come to some such resolution as -this: That an officer be established for the management of the finances -of the United States, at the head of which shall be an officer to be -denominated the Secretary of Finance. I am not tenacious of the style, -perhaps some other may be proper, but the object I have in view is to -establish the department; after which we may go on to narrate the duties -of the officer, and accommodate the name to the acts he is to perform. -The departments under the late constitution are not to be models for us -to form ours upon by reason of the essential change which has taken -place in the Government, and the new distribution of legislative, -executive, and judicial powers. - -If gentlemen then agree with me so far, I shall proceed to restrain the -Secretary of Finance, and all persons under him, from being concerned in -trade or commerce, and make it his duty to superintend the treasury and -the finances of the United States, examine the public debts and -engagements, inspect the collection and expenditure of the revenue, and -to form and digest plans for its improvement. There may be other duties -which gentlemen may add, as I do not pretend to have perfectly -enumerated them all. After this point is settled, we may then go to the -consideration of the War Department, and the Department of Foreign -Affairs; but, for the present, I would wish to confine ourselves to the -Department of Finance. - -Mr. BENSON wished the committee to consider what he judged to be a -previous question, namely, how many departments there should be -established? He approved of the division mentioned by the gentleman; but -would, with his leave, move that there be established in aid of the -Chief Magistrate, three executive departments, to be severally -denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs, Treasury, and War. After -determining this question, if it was a proper division, the committee -might proceed to enumerate the duties which should be attached to each. - -Mr. BOUDINOT said, he could apologize for not bringing the business on -in another way. It seemed to be a settled point in the House that a -Committee of the Whole was the proper place for determining principles -before they were sent elsewhere; he had therefore adopted that mode on -the present occasion, though his own judgment would incline him to -pursue that last mentioned by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. BLAND.) -He conceived the necessity of having such an office was indisputable; -the Government could not be carried on without it; but there may be a -question with respect to the mode in which the business of the office -shall be conducted; there may also be a question respecting the -constitution of it, but none with respect to the establishment of either -of the three departments he had mentioned. - -Mr. BENSON said, his motion was founded upon the constitutional division -of these powers; the constitution contemplated them, because it gave the -President the right of requiring the opinion of the principal officer in -each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the -duties of their respective offices. If gentlemen were inclined to waive -the determination for the present, he had no objection; it was certainly -a subject of great importance, and required time for consideration. - -Mr. VINING thought the gentleman should have added another department, -viz: the Home Department. The territorial possessions of the United -States, and the domestic affairs, would be objects of the greatest -magnitude, and he suspected would render it essentially requisite to -establish such a one. - -Mr. BOUDINOT wished to confine the question to the Department of -Finance. - -A motion was made by Mr. BLAND for the committee's rising. - -Mr. MADISON hoped they would not rise until the principles were settled. -He thought it much better to determine the outlines of all business in a -Committee of the Whole. He was satisfied it would be found, on -experience, to shorten their deliberations. If the gentlemen who had -offered motions to the committee would withdraw them, he would offer one -which he judged likely to embrace the intentions of both gentlemen. - -Mr. BENSON withdrew his motion, and Mr. MADISON moved, that it is the -opinion of this committee, that there shall be established an Executive -Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs, at the -head of which there shall be an officer, to be called the Secretary to -the Department of Foreign Affairs, who shall be appointed by the -President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and to be -removable by the President. - -That there shall be a Treasury Department, &c. - -That there shall be a War Department, &c. - -Mr. VINING seconded the motion, and offered to amend it, by adding the -Domestic Department, _mutatis mutandis_. He said this department, in his -opinion, was of absolute necessity, more requisite than either of the -other three, except the Department of Finance; the present and -increasing duties of such a department will oblige them to make the -establishment. - -Mr. LIVERMORE was not prepared to decide on the question even as now -brought forward, nor did he see a reason why the Department of Foreign -Affairs was placed at the head of the list. He thought the Treasury -Department of more importance, and consequently deserved the precedence. - -As to the Domestic Department just mentioned by the gentleman from -Delaware, he thought its duties might be blended with the others, and -thereby save the United States the expense of one grand department. If -the gentleman, therefore, would wait to see what were the duties -assigned to them severally, he would be able to judge respecting his -motion with greater propriety. - -Mr. VINING withdrew his motion for the present. - -And the committee agreed to the establishment of the Department of -Foreign Affairs, and placing at the head thereof an officer to be called -the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; but when they came to the mode of -appointing the officer, - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) moved to strike out the words "who shall -be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the -Senate." He conceived the words to be unnecessary; besides, it looked as -if they were conferring power, which was not the case, for the -constitution had expressly given the power of appointment in the words -there used. He also objected to the subsequent part of this paragraph, -because it declared the President alone to have the power of removal. - -Mr. PAGE saw no impropriety in passing an act to carry into execution -the views of the constitution, and therefore had no objection to repeat -those words in the resolution. He thought if the committee stopped -there, they would be under no difficulty respecting the propriety of -their measure, but if they went further they might meet with -considerable embarrassment. - -Mr. MADISON remarked, that as there was a discretionary power in the -Legislature to give the privilege to the President alone of appointing -inferior officers, there could be no injury in declaring in the -resolution the constitutional mode of appointing the heads of -departments; however, if gentlemen were uneasy, he would not object to -strike it out. - -Mr. LEE thought this officer was an inferior officer; the President was -the great and responsible officer of the Government; this was only to -aid him in performing his executive duties; hence he conceived the power -of appointing to be in the gift of the Legislature, and therefore the -words were proper. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina.)--This officer is at the head of a -department, and one of those who are to advise the President; the -inferior officers mentioned in the constitution are clerks and other -subordinate persons. The words are only a repetition of the words in the -constitution, and are consequently superfluous. - -The question was taken on striking out those words, and carried in the -affirmative. - -The committee proceeded to the discussion of the power of the President -to remove this officer. - -Mr. SMITH said, he had doubts whether the officer could be removed by -the President. He apprehended he could only be removed by an impeachment -before the Senate, and that, being once in office, he must remain there -until convicted upon impeachment. He wished gentlemen would consider -this point well before they decided it. - -Mr. MADISON did not concur with the gentleman in his interpretation of -the constitution. What, said he, would be the consequence of such -construction? It would in effect establish every officer of the -Government on the firm tenure of good behavior; not the heads of -departments only, but all the inferior officers of those departments, -would hold their offices during good behavior, and that to be judged of -by one branch of the Legislature only on the impeachment of the other. -If the constitution means this by its declarations to be the case, we -must submit; but I should lament it as a fatal error interwoven in the -system, and one that would ultimately prove its destruction. I think the -inference would not arise from a fair construction of the words of that -instrument. - -It is very possible that an officer who may not incur the displeasure of -the President, may be guilty of actions that ought to forfeit his place. -The power of this House may reach him by the means of an impeachment, -and he may be removed even against the will of the President; so that -the declaration in the constitution was intended as a supplemental -security for the good behavior of the public officers. It is possible -the case I have stated may happen. Indeed, it may, perhaps, on some -occasion, be found necessary to impeach the President himself; surely, -therefore, it may happen to a subordinate officer, whose bad actions may -be connived at or overlooked by the President. Hence the people have an -additional security in this constitutional provision. - -I think it absolutely necessary that the President should have the -power of removing from office; it will make him, in a peculiar manner, -responsible for their conduct, and subject him to impeachment himself, -if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or -misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their -conduct, so as to check their excesses. On the constitutionality of the -declaration I have no manner of doubt. - -Mr. BENSON.--If we refer to the constitution for light on this subject, -it will appear evident that the objection is not well founded. The -objection is this, that an officer ought not to be removed but by -impeachment; then every officer is appointed during good behavior. Now, -the constitution expressly declares, that the Judges, both of the -Supreme and Inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good -behavior. If it is declared, that they are to hold their offices by this -particular tenure, it follows that the other officers of the Government -should hold them only at pleasure. He thought this an important -question, and one in which they were obliged to take the constitution by -construction. For although it detailed the mode of appointing to office, -it was not explicit as to the supersedure; this clause, therefore, would -be a mere declaration of the legislative construction on this point. He -thought the importance and necessity of making the declaration, that the -Chief Magistrate might supersede any civil officer was evident, and he -should therefore vote in favor of the clause as it stood. - -Mr. VINING said, there were no negative words in the constitution to -preclude the President from the exercise of this power; but there was a -strong presumption that he was invested with it: because it was -declared, that all executive power should be vested in him, except in -cases where it is otherwise qualified; as, for example, he could not -fully exercise his executive power in making treaties, unless with the -advice and consent of the Senate--the same in appointing to office. - -He viewed the power of removal, by impeachment, as a supplementary -security to the people against the continuance of improper persons in -office; but it did not consist with the nature of things, that this -should be the only mode of removal; it was attended with circumstances -that would render it insufficient to secure the public safety, which was -a primary object in every Government. Witness a transatlantic instance -of its incompetency--he meant the famous case of Mr. Hastings. With what -difficulty was that prosecution carried on! What a length of time did it -take to determine! What is to be done while the impeachment is -depending? For, according to the ideas of the gentleman from South -Carolina, (Mr. SMITH,) he cannot be removed but on conviction. If he -cannot be removed, I should suppose he cannot be suspended; and what -security have the people against the machinations of a bad man in -office? He had no doubt but the constitution gave this power to the -President; but if doubts were entertained, he thought it prudent to -make a legislative declaration of the sentiments of Congress on this -point. He was therefore in favor of the clause. - -Mr. BLAND thought the power given by the constitution to the Senate, -respecting the appointment to office, would be rendered almost nugatory -if the President had the power of removal. If the first nomination of -the President should be disapproved by the Senate, and the second agreed -to, he had nothing to do but wait the adjournment of Congress, and then -fill the vacancy with his favorite; who, by thus getting into the -possession of the office, would have a considerable chance of permanency -in it. He thought it consistent with the nature of things, that the -power which appointed should remove; and would not object to a -declaration in the resolution, if the words were added, that the -President shall remove from office, by and with the advice and consent -of the Senate. He agreed that the removal by impeachment was a -supplementary aid favorable to the people; but he was clearly of -opinion, that the same power that appointed had, or ought to have, the -power of removal. - -Mr. JACKSON wished the motion had been referred to a sub-committee to -digest: it seemed to him they were building the house before the plan -was drawn. He wished to see the system reduced to writing, that he might -leisurely judge of the necessity and propriety of each office and its -particular duties. - -With respect to the question before the House he was of opinion that if -the House had the power of removal by the constitution, they could not -give it out of their hands; because every power recognized by the -constitution must remain where it was placed by that instrument. But the -words in the constitution declare, in positive terms, that all civil -officers shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction -of, high crimes and misdemeanors; and however long it may take to -decide, in this way it must be done. He did not think the case of Mr. -Hastings ought to be brought forward as a precedent for conducting such -business in the United States. He believed, whenever an impeachment was -brought before the Senate, they would proceed with all imaginable speed -to its termination. He should, in case of impeachment, be willing to go -so far as to give the power of suspension to the President, and he -thought this all the security which the public safety required; it would -prevent the party from doing further mischief. He agreed with the -gentleman in the general principle, that the body who appointed ought to -have the power of removal, as the body which enacts laws can repeal -them; but if the power is deposited in any particular department by the -constitution, it is out of the power of the House to alter it. - -Mr. MADISON did not conceive it was a proper construction of the -constitution to say, that there was no other mode of removing from -office than that by impeachment; he believed this, as applied to the -Judges, might be the case, but he could never imagine it extended in the -manner which gentlemen contended for. He believed they would not assert, -that any part of the constitution declared, that the only way to remove -should be by impeachment; the contrary might be inferred, because -Congress may establish offices by law; therefore, most certainly, it is -in the discretion of the Legislature to say upon what terms the office -shall be held, either during good behavior or during pleasure. Under -this construction, the principles of the constitution would be -reconcilable in every part; but under that of the gentleman from South -Carolina, it would be incongruous and faulty. He wondered how the -gentleman from Georgia (Mr. JACKSON) would reconcile his principles so -far as to permit the President to suspend the officer. He begged his -colleague (Mr. BLAND) to consider the inconvenience his doctrine would -occasion, by keeping the Senate constantly sitting, in order to give -their assent to the removal of an officer; they might see there would be -a constant probability of the Senate being called upon to exercise this -power, consequently they could not be a moment absent. Now, he did not -believe the constitution imposed any such duty upon them; why, then, -said he, shall we enjoin it, especially at such an expense of the public -treasure? - -Mr. BOUDINOT would by no means infringe the constitution by any act of -his, for if he thought this motion would lead the committee beyond the -powers assigned to the Legislature, he would give it a decided negative; -but, on an impartial examination of that instrument, he could not see -the least foundation for such an objection; however, he was glad the -question had come forward, because he wished to give a legislative -construction to this part of the constitution. - -The gentlemen who denied the power of the President to remove from -office, founded their opinion upon the fourth section of the second -article of the constitution, where it is declared, that all officers -shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, -treason or bribery. If their construction is admissible, and no officer -whatever is to be removed in any other way than by impeachment, we shall -be in a deplorable situation indeed. Consider the extent of the United -States, and the difficulty of conducting a prosecution against an -officer, who, with the witnesses, resides a thousand miles from the seat -of Government. But suppose the officer should, by sickness, or some -other accident, be rendered incapable of performing the functions of the -office, must he be continued? And yet it is to be apprehended, that such -a disability would not furnish any good ground for impeachment; it could -not be laid as treason or bribery, nor perhaps as a high crime or -misdemeanor. Would gentlemen narrow the operation of the constitution in -this manner, and render it impossible to be executed? - -Mr. WHITE thought no office under the Government was to be held during -pleasure, except those which are to be constituted by law; but all the -heads of departments are to be appointed by the President, by and with -the advice and consent of the Senate. He conceived that, in all cases, -the party who appointed ought to judge of the removal, except in those -cases which by the constitution are excepted; and in those cases -impeachment and conviction are the only mode by which they can be -removed. - -Mr. THATCHER asked, why the Judges were particularly mentioned in the -constitution as holding their offices during good behavior, if it was -not supposed that, without this express declaration in their favor, -they, in common with all other officers not immediately chosen by the -State Legislatures and the people, would hold them during pleasure? The -clause respecting impeachments was particularly calculated for removing -unworthy officers of the other description. Holding this construction of -the constitution to be right, he was in favor of the clause as it stood. - -Mr. SYLVESTER thought the constitution ought to have a liberal -construction, and therefore was of opinion that the clause relative to -the removal by impeachment was intended as a check upon the President, -as already mentioned by some gentlemen, and to secure to the people, by -means of their representatives, a constitutional mode of obtaining -justice against peculators and defaulters in office, who might be -protected by the persons appointing them. He apprehended the doctrine -held out by the gentleman from South Carolina would involve the -Government in great difficulties, if not in ruin, and he did not see it -was a necessary construction of the constitution. Why, then, should the -House search for a meaning, to make the constitution inconsistent with -itself, when a more rational one is at hand? He, however, inclined at -present to the sentiments of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. BLAND,) -who thought the Senate ought to be joined with the President in the -removal, as they were joined by the constitution in the appointment to -office. - -Mr. GOODHUE was decidedly against combining the Senate in this business. -He wished to make the President as responsible as possible for the -conduct of the officers who were to execute the duties of his own branch -of the Government. If the removal and appointment were placed in the -hands of a numerous body, the responsibility would be lessened. He -admitted there was a propriety in allowing the Senate to advise the -President in the choice of officers; this the constitution had ordained -for wise purposes; but there could be no real advantage arising from the -concurrence of the Senate to the removal, but great disadvantages. It -might beget faction and party, which would prevent the Senate from -paying proper attention to the public business. Upon the whole, he -concluded the community would be served by the best men when the Senate -concurred with the President in the appointment; but if any oversight -was committed, it could best be corrected by the superintending agent. -It was the peculiar duty of the President to watch over the executive -officers; but of what avail would be his inspection, unless he had a -power to correct the abuses he might discover. - -Mr. GERRY.--The constitution provides for the appointment of the public -officers in this manner: The President shall nominate, and by and with -the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other -public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other -officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein -otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. Now, if -there be no other clause respecting the appointment, I shall be glad to -see how the heads of departments are to be removed by the President -alone. What clause is it that gives this power in express terms? I -believe there is none such. If there is a power of removal, besides that -by impeachment, it must vest somewhere. It must vest in the President, -or in the President and Senate, or in the President, Senate, and House -of Representatives. Now, there is no clause which expressly vests it in -the President. I believe no gentleman contends it is in this House, -because that would be that mingling of the executive and legislative -powers gentlemen deprecate. I presume, then, gentlemen will grant, that -if there is such a power, it vests with the President, by and with the -advice and consent of the Senate, who are the body that appoints. I -think we ought to be cautious how we step in between the President and -the Senate, to abridge the power of the one, or increase the other. If -the power of removal vests where I suppose, we, by this declaration, -undertake to transfer it to the President alone. - -It has been mentioned, that it is proper to give this power to the -President, in order to make him more fully responsible for this officer. -I am for supporting the President to the utmost of my power, and making -him as responsible as possible. I would therefore vest every gift of -office, in the power of the Legislature, in the President alone; but I -cannot think we ought to attempt to give him authority to remove from -office, in cases where the constitution has placed it in other hands. - -Mr. LIVERMORE considered this as a constitutional question, and was of -opinion, that the same power which appointed an officer, had the right -of removal also, unless it was restrained by an express declaration to -the contrary. As the President, by and with the advice and consent of -the Senate, is empowered to appoint ambassadors, certainly they have a -right to remove them and appoint others. In the case of the judges, they -must be appointed for life, or during good behavior. He had no idea, -that it could ever enter into the heart of any man living, that all -officers appointed under the constitution were to have a perpetuity in -office. The judges themselves would not have had this right, if it had -not been expressly given by the constitution, but would be removable in -like manner with ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. He -took it, therefore, in the present case, that the President and the -Senate would have the power of removing the Secretary of Foreign -Affairs. The only question, therefore, which appears to be before the -committee is, whether we shall give this power to the President alone? -And with that he thought they had nothing to do. He supposed, if the -clause was left out, the President and the Senate would proceed, as -directed by the constitution, to appoint the officer; and hereafter, if -they judged it necessary, would remove him; but if they neglected to do -so, when it was necessary, by reason of his misdemeanors, this House -would impeach him, and so get rid of him on conviction. - -Mr. BLAND.--It seems to be agreed on all hands, that there does exist a -power of removal; the contrary doctrine would be a solecism in -Government. If an officer embezzles the public money, or neglects or -refuses to do the duties of his appointment, can it be supposed there is -no way of getting rid of such a person? He was certain it was -essentially necessary such a power should be lodged somewhere, or it -would be impossible to carry the Government into execution. Their -inquiries were therefore reduced to this point: Does it reside, -agreeably to the constitution, in the President, or in the President and -the Senate? The constitution declares, that the President and the Senate -shall appoint, and it naturally follows, that the power which appoints -shall remove also. What would be the consequence of the removal by the -President alone, he had already mentioned, and need not repeat. A new -President might, by turning out the great officers, bring about a change -of the ministry, and throw the affairs of the Union into disorder: would -not this, in fact, make the President a monarch, and give him absolute -power over all the great departments of Government? It signifies nothing -that the Senate have a check over the appointment, because he can -remove, and tire out the good disposition of the Senate. - -Mr. CLYMER said, the power of removal was an executive power, and as -such belonged to the President alone, by the express words of the -constitution: "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the -United States of America." The Senate were not an executive body; they -were a legislative one. It was true, in some instances, they held a -qualified check over the executive power, but that was in consequence of -an express declaration in the constitution; without such declaration, -they would not have been called upon for advice and consent in the case -of appointment. Why, then, shall we extend their power to control the -removal which is naturally in the Executive, unless it is likewise -expressly declared in the constitution? - -The question on adding the words "by and with the advice and consent of -the Senate," as moved by Mr. BLAND, was put and lost. - -The question was now taken, and carried by a considerable majority, in -favor of declaring the power of removal to be in the President. - - -WEDNESDAY, May 20. - -_Treasury Department._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union, Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair. The resolution for -establishing the Treasury Department being under consideration: - -Mr. GERRY.--We are now called upon, Mr. Speaker, to deliberate, whether -we shall place this all-important department in the hands of a single -individual, or in a Board of Commissioners. I presume the gentleman, who -has brought forward this string of propositions, means, that this -officer shall have power to examine into the state of the public debt -and expenses, to receive and disburse the revenue, to devise plans for -its improvement and expansion, and, in short, to superintend and direct -the receipts and expenditure, and govern the finances of the United -States; having under him officers to do the subordinate business of -registering and recording his transactions, and a Comptroller to control -his operations with respect to the accounts and vouchers. - -Before this committee proceed one step farther in this business, they -ought seriously to consider the situation of this country, and what will -be the consequence of appointing such an officer; consider how it will -affect the public in general, the revenue, and even the Government -itself. He is declared, in the list of duties assigned him in the paper -read yesterday by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. BENSON,) to have the -power to form and digest the accounts, and to control all the officers -of the department. It is evident, that we put his integrity to the -trial, by such an arrangement. If he is disposed to embezzle the public -money, it will be out of the power of the Executive itself to check or -control him in his nefarious practices. The extension of his business to -the collectors of at least fifty seaports, (over whom the naval officer -can have no control, with respect to the money received,) will furnish -abundant opportunities for peculation. In addition to the moneys arising -from the impost, he may have to do with large sums derived from other -quarters, from the sale of the vacant lands, the money of defaulters now -due to the United States, and the revenue arising from taxes and -excises. Admit these innumerable opportunities for defrauding the -revenue, without check or control, and it is next to impossible he -should remain unsullied in his reputation, or innoxious with respect to -misapplying his trust. - -Other great opportunities may arise in case of an anticipation of the -public revenue; or, if it is necessary to prevent the injury which a -rapid depreciation of the securities would occasion to public credit, he -may be employed in purchasing them, in order to advance the credit of -the Union. But what is to prevent the greatest imposition in this -business? Charging them to the public at their nominal value, it is not -in the power of the Government to check this species of speculation; -what then is the situation of your officer? He must subject himself to -suspicion: indeed, it is as much as his reputation is worth to come into -a place of this kind; he can hardly preserve his integrity. His honor, -credit, and character, must inevitably be injured. He cannot prove -himself innocent of the suspicion, because it is the negative side of -the question. He can offer nothing more in his defence than a mere -denial of the crime. - -There is another point which ought to be well considered: This officer -is to digest and form the accounts. He can consequently give the -business such complexity, as to render it impossible to detect his -impositions; and as the inferior officers, who might discover the fraud, -are to be appointed by the principal, will they not consequently be men -after his own heart? - -Taking these circumstances together, it must be very disagreeable to the -person appointed, provided he is an honest, upright man; it will be -disagreeable also to the people of the Union, who will always have -reason to suspect, that a partiality is shown to the collectors, and -other officers of the State to which he belonged. This has absolutely -been the case, and was productive of very great dissatisfaction. I would -be glad to know of the gentlemen, who are for vesting these powers in a -single person, where they will find the man who is capable of performing -the duties of a financier? For it is not the mere calling him a -financier, and giving him a large salary, that will enable him to -perform his functions in such a manner as to give satisfaction. We had -once a gentleman who filled such a department, and I believe the only -one in the United States who had knowledge and abilities by any means -competent to the business; but that gentleman is now employed in another -branch of the Government, and cannot be called to this trust. During the -late war, Congress thinking it necessary to employ a financier, were led -to inquire for a proper character to fill such an office; but not being -able to discover such a one in this country, in whose abilities they had -sufficient confidence, they wrote to Doctor Price a letter, to induce -him to come to America, and accept of an appointment under them, for the -superintendence of their finances. He wrote, in answer, that he felt -with gratitude the honor which they had done him by their application, -and signified, that he was desirous of rendering every service in his -power to aid the glorious cause in which America was embarked; but, from -his advanced situation in life, and infirmities of body, he was under -the necessity of declining. This circumstance serves to show how -difficult it is to get a proper person for so arduous an undertaking. -But it appears to me, that if we could fix upon a person equal to the -office, involving him in forming accounts, and such trifling business, -would divert his attention from the more important duties he is called -upon to perform. The proper business of finance, I take it, ought to be -to consider of the means to improve the revenue, and introducing economy -into the expenditures; to recommend general systems of finance, without -having any thing to do with the actual administration of them, because, -if he engages in the executive business, we shall be deprived of his -talents in more important concerns. If it should be granted that there -is a person of abilities to be found, adequate to the duties of the -office, I want to know where the advantage arises of appointing him -alone in preference to a Board? If you have commissioners, you have an -opportunity of taking one from each grand division of the United States, -namely, the Eastern, the Middle, and Southern Districts. If this person -is a member of the Board, is it not evident you will have every -advantage from his abilities in such a situation, as you would if he -were placed in office without control? If he was possessed of such -genius, he could employ it more usefully as a Commissioner of the Board -of Treasury, than when left to perform all the drudgery of the executive -part; because while his fine imagination was busied in reducing a chaos -to a beautiful system, his colleagues might perform those parts which -required less elevation of thought; by dividing the burthen, the -business would be done with more regularity and facility. Surely no -advantage to the public would arise from giving him the sole management -of the business, but much inconvenience might; besides, it must -unavoidably, as I said before, subject him to suspicions unfavorable to -his reputation. This has absolutely been realized; it is not a mere -chimera, a matter of speculation. We have had a Board of Treasury, and -we have had a Financier. Have not express charges, as well as vague -rumors, been brought against him at the bar of the public? They may be -unfounded, it is true; but it shows that a man cannot serve in such a -station without exciting popular clamor. It is very well known, I dare -say, to many gentlemen in this House, that the noise and commotion were -such as obliged Congress once more to alter their Treasury Department, -and place it under the management of a Board of Commissioners. We have -seen speculations excited from this quarter against the Government -itself, and painful insinuations of design by his appointment to the -Senate. I mention these circumstances to exhibit to your view the -inconveniencies to which an officer is subjected by constituting an -office of this nature. If the gentleman I have alluded to had been a -member of the Board of Treasury, he would not have been subjected to the -charges which were brought against him. In such a situation, he could -have rendered the services his great abilities enabled him to do, -without exposing his character to be torn to pieces by malevolence or -detraction. - -I am desirous of supporting the President; but the Senate requires to be -supported also in their constitutional rights. To this body belongs the -confidence of the States; while the President rests his support upon -them he will be secure. They, with this House, can give him proper -information of what is for the public interest, and, by pursuing their -advice, he will continue to himself that good opinion which is justly -entertained of him. If we are to establish a number of such grand -officers as these, the consequences appear to me pretty plain. These -officers, bearing the titles of minister at war, minister of state, -minister for the finances, minister of foreign affairs, and how many -more ministers I cannot say, will be made necessary to the President. If -by this establishment we make them more respectable than the other -branches of the Government, the President will be induced to place more -confidence in them than in the Senate; the people will also be led to -consider them as more consequential persons. But all high officers of -this kind must have confidence placed in them; they will in fact be the -chancellors, the ministers of the nation. It will lead to the -establishment of a system of favoritism, and the principal magistrate -will be governed by these men. An oligarchy will be confirmed upon the -ruin of the democracy; a Government most hateful will descend to our -posterity, and all our exertions in the glorious cause of freedom will -be frustrated: we shall go on till we reduce the powers of the President -and Senate to nothing but a name. This surely, sir, does not comport -with the conduct of the House. We have been very tenacious of giving a -title to the President, lest it should be implied we desired to increase -his power. We would call him by no other appellation than merely -President of the United States. I confess I was not such a stickler -about titles as all this, because I did not consider that the liberties -of the people could be hurt by such means; but I am not clear that the -constitution authorizes us to bestow titles; it is not among the -enumerated powers of Congress. But if the constitution did authorize -it--[A call to order was made by some of the members, and Mr. GERRY was -desired to confine himself to the point; the subject of titles was not -before the House.][25] Mr. GERRY proceeded, and said the Senate were -constitutionally the highest officers of Government, except the -President and Vice President; that the House was about to supersede -them, and place over their heads a set of ministers who were to hold the -reins of Government, and all this to answer no good purpose whatever; -because the same services could be obtained from subordinate officers. - -In short, a Board of Treasury would conduct the business of finance with -greater security and satisfaction than a single officer. He had a very -good opinion of the gentleman who formerly administered the finances of -the United States, and doubted if another of equal qualities could be -found; but it was impossible for any person to give satisfaction in such -a station. Jealousy would unavoidably be entertained; besides, no -inconvenience resulted from the present arrangement of that department; -therefore, there could be no good reason to induce a change. If the -House was truly republican and consistent, they would not admit -officers, with or without titles, to possess such amazing powers as -would eventually end in the ruin of the Government. Under these -impressions, he moved to amend the resolution so as to read, "there -shall be established a Treasury Department, at the head of which there -shall be three commissioners, to be denominated the Board of Treasury." - -Mr. WADSWORTH.--My official duty has led me often to attend at the -treasury of the United States, and, from my experience, I venture to -pronounce that a Board of Treasury is the worst of all institutions. -They have doubled our national debt. (I do not mean by this observation -to censure any man who has been in that office: I presume they were -honest men, and did as well as could be done under such a system.) But I -do not remember a single instance, in any one board, that I found them -to have a system that would give even tolerable satisfaction; there -appeared a want of confidence in the members of them all: they seemed to -have no fixed principles to guide them, nor responsibility for their -conduct. - -I have had also transactions at the treasury whilst it was managed by a -Superintendent of Finance. As to what fell from the gentleman last up, -(though without intention, I dare say, to affect or prejudice the -character of that officer, it may possibly have such an effect,) I think -it necessary to state my sentiments, which are formed from my own -experience as well as from report. I had great transactions with him, -and must say that there did appear to be system in his management, and -responsibility in his negotiations. I dare risk my fortune and character -with him, because there was unity in the officer, and somebody in whom I -could confide. The nature of the office is better calculated to give -satisfaction than the other. I will not pretend to enumerate the savings -he made, by introducing economy throughout the whole departments under -Congress, because I do not know them all; but they were very -considerable. The administration of the finances was clear to the -meanest capacity. Receipts and expenditures were stated simply; they -were published to the world. The heads of the Treasury Department, the -Board of Commissioners, I do not believe have closed their accounts to -this very day. I do not say it is for want of ability, will, or honesty, -that this event has not taken place. I conceive it to be owing to their -want of system in conducting their business. I wish the committee had -before them the transactions of the board for one single month; they -would find what I have remarked to be too well founded. Instead of -system and responsibility, they would find nothing but confusion and -disorder, without a possibility of checking their accounts. I know I am -heard by one gentleman who is acquainted with these truths by -experience.[26] - -I beg leave to repeat once more, that under boards of treasury, there -never was a possibility of the public knowing their situation; there is -no possibility of getting on with the public accounts and closing them; -there have not been the transactions of more than one of the great -departments completely settled, owing to a radical defect in their -constitution; they cannot proceed with that unity and decision necessary -to insure justice. As to what the gentleman said, with respect to the -difficulty of getting a proper officer to fill the department, I will -just observe, that I do not believe it impossible, and am therefore -prepared to attempt it. - -Mr. BENSON stated, that in the year 1781, from the very great -derangement of public affairs, Congress were induced to place the -Treasury Department under the superintendence of an individual. It is -true, after the conclusion of the war, in the latter end of 1783, or -beginning of 1784, Congress again changed their system, and placed the -department in the hands of three commissioners, to be taken, as the -gentleman has said, one from the Eastern, one from the Middle, and one -from the Southern district; which regulation I think induced above -twenty applications. Some gentlemen on this floor will doubtless -recollect an observation that was made at that time, that if this trust -had been to be reposed in one responsible individual, not perhaps more -than three of the candidates would have had confidence to come forward -as applicants for the office. - -For his part, he conceived, that it required the same abilities in every -individual of the commissioners, as was necessary if a single person was -placed at the head of the department. If men competent to the -undertaking are so difficult to be found, you will increase the -embarrassment of the President threefold by making the arrangement the -gentleman contends for. The principle upon which the gentleman advocates -the appointment of a Board of Treasury, would apply in favor of a change -in the constitution, and we ought to have three Presidents of the United -States instead of one, because their business might be done with more -regularity and facility; but he did not think the argument to be well -founded. - -Mr. BALDWIN thought that there were very few gentlemen who had much to -do with public business, but had turned their attention to this -question. He had employed his reflection upon the subject for some time, -and his sentiments were against the establishment of a Board of -Treasury. He was persuaded there was not so much responsibility in -boards as there was in individuals, nor is there such good ground for -the exercise of the talents of a financier in that way. Boards were -generally more destitute of energy than was an individual placed at the -head of a department. The observations of the gentleman from -Massachusetts were of great weight, so far as they inferred the -necessity of proper checks in the department having care of the public -money; if they had system, energy, and responsibility, he should be in -favor of them; but his experience had convinced him of the contrary. He -was not an advocate for an unlimited authority in this officer. He hoped -to see proper checks provided; a Comptroller, Auditors, Register, and -Treasurer. He would not suffer the Secretary to touch a farthing of the -public money beyond his salary. The settling of the accounts should be -in the Auditors and Comptroller; the registering them to be in another -officer, and the cash in the hands of one unconnected with either. He -was satisfied that in this way the treasury might be safe, and great -improvements made in the business of revenue. - -Mr. MADISON had intended to have given his sentiments on this subject; -but he was anticipated in some things by the gentleman last up. He -wished, in all cases of an executive nature, that the committee should -consider the powers that were to be exercised, and where that power was -too great to be trusted to an individual, proper care should be taken so -to regulate and check the exercise, as would give indubitable security -for the perfect preservation of the public interest, and to prevent that -suspicion which men of integrity were ever desirous of avoiding. This -was his intention in the present case. If the committee agreed to his -proposition, he intended to introduce principles of caution, which he -supposed would give satisfaction on that point. As far as was -practicable, he would have the various business of this important branch -of the Government divided and modified, so as to lull at least the -jealousy expressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts; indeed, he -supposed, with the assistance of the committee, it might be formed so as -to give satisfaction. He had no doubt but that the offices might be so -constituted as to restrain and check each other; and unless an unbounded -combination took place, which he could by no means suppose was likely to -be the case, that the public would be safe and secure under the -administration. He would favor the arrangement mentioned by the worthy -gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. BALDWIN,) and after that was -separated from the Secretary's duties, he believed the officer would -find sufficient business to employ his time and talents in rendering -essential services to his country. This arrangement he considered would -answer most of the objections which had been urged. - -If a board is established, the independent officers of Comptroller and -Auditor are unknown; you then give the aggregate of these powers to the -board, the members of which are equal; therefore you give more power to -each individual than is proposed to be trusted in the Secretary; and if -apprehensions are to be entertained of a combination, they apply as -forcibly in the case of two or three commissioners combining, as they do -in the case of the Secretary, Comptroller, and other officers. If -gentlemen permit these sentiments to have their full weight, and -consider the advantages arising from energy, system, and responsibility, -which were all in favor of his motion, he had no doubt of their -according with him on this question. - -Mr. BOUDINOT considered the question to be, whether the department -should be under the direction of one or more officers. He was against -boards, because he was convinced by experience that they are liable to -all the objections which gentlemen had stated. He wished the committee -had it in their power to turn to the transactions of this department -since the revolution, to examine the expenditures under former boards of -treasury, and under the Superintendent of Finance; it would so confound -them, that he was sure no gentleman would offer another argument in -favor of boards. He was not acquainted with the management under the -present board. He had not been in the habit of doing business with them. -But between the administration of the former and the Superintendent of -Finance, there was an intolerable comparison. He was far from being -astonished at the jealousy and suspicion entertained of that valuable -officer; he rather wondered that the clamor was not more loud and -tremendous. He could not repeat all the causes there were for accusation -against him, but surely they were not inconsiderable. He remembered one -hundred and forty-six supernumerary officers were brushed off in one -day, who had long been sucking the vital blood and spirit of the nation. -Was it to be wondered at, if this swarm should raise a buzz about him? -The reform which daily took place made him no inconsiderable number of -enemies. The expenditures under the Board of Treasury had been enormous. -They were curtailed in the quartermasters, commissaries of provision and -military stores, in the hospital, and every great department established -by Congress; so that, besides those who were offended by a removal, -every one who was affected by this economy, or parsimony, if they will -call it so, were incensed against him. It was impossible to gain friends -among those people by a practice of this kind. He would state a -circumstance which might give the committee some small idea of what the -savings under the Superintendent were. The expenditure of hay at a -certain post was one hundred and forty tons; such was the estimate laid -before him; yet twelve tons carried the post through the year, and the -supply was abundant, and the post was as fully and usefully occupied as -it had ever been before. - -The question on the amendment proposed by Mr. GERRY was taken and lost; -after which the resolutions respecting the Treasury and War Department, -as proposed by Mr. MADISON, were both agreed to. - -Mr. VINING then proposed the establishment of the Domestic Department -upon the same principles; but, on motion of Mr. BOUDINOT, the committee -rose and reported the resolutions agreed to.--Adjourned. - - -THURSDAY, May 21. - -_Executive Departments._ - -The House proceeded to consider the resolution reported yesterday from -the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union, and the same -being amended to read as follows: - - _Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee that - there ought to be established the following executive - departments, viz: A Department of Foreign Affairs, at the - head of which shall be an officer to be called Secretary to - the United States for the Department of Foreign Affairs, - removable by the President. A Treasury Department, at the - head of which shall be an officer to be called Secretary to - the United States for the Treasury Department, removable by - the President. A Department of War, at the head of which - shall be an officer to be called Secretary to the United - States for the Department of War, removable by the - President. - - _Resolved_, That this House doth concur with the committee - in the said resolution; and that a committee, to consist of - eleven members, be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill - or bills pursuant thereto. - -The members elected were, Mr. BALDWIN, Mr. VINING, Mr. LIVERMORE, Mr. -MADISON, Mr. BENSON, Mr. BURKE, Mr. FITZSIMONS, Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. -WADSWORTH, Mr. GERRY, and Mr. CADWALADER. - - -FRIDAY, May 22. - -_Contested Election._[27] - -The House resumed the consideration of the report on Mr. SMITH'S case. - -After some desultory conversation on the recommitment and mode of -proceeding, it was agreed to examine the evidence in favor of Mr. -SMITH, the facts alleged by Doctor Ramsay, in proof that Mr. SMITH was -not seven years a citizen of the United States, being admitted. -Whereupon, it being moved and seconded, that the House do agree to the -following resolution: - - _Resolved_, That it appears to this House, upon full and - mature consideration, that the said WILLIAM SMITH had been - seven years a citizen of the United States, at the time of - his election. - -Mr. SMITH.--As the House are inclined to hear the observations I have to -make, I shall begin with admitting the facts stated in the memorial of -Doctor Ramsay, hoping the House will excuse the egotism into which I am -unavoidably drawn. I was born in Charleston, South Carolina, of a family -whose ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony, and was -sent to England for my education when I was but twelve years of age. In -1774, I was sent to Geneva, to pursue my studies, where I resided until -1778. In November, that year, I went to Paris, where I resided upwards -of two months in the character of an American gentleman. Immediately on -my arrival there, I waited on Doctor Franklin, Mr. Adams, and Mr. A. -Lee, the Commissioners from Congress to the court of France, as a -citizen of America, and was received as such by them. In January, 1779, -I left Paris for London, whither I went to procure the means of -embarking for America, from the gentleman who had been appointed my -guardian by my father when I was first sent to Europe in 1770, and from -whom alone I had any hope of obtaining such means. But in this endeavor, -I was disappointed, and remained some time in England, with the hope of -receiving remittances from Charleston. Here again my expectation was -defeated. The rapid depreciation of the continental money rendered the -negotiation of money transactions extremely difficult, and thus I -remained till the fall of Charleston. I took this opportunity of -studying the law, but could not be called to the bar, because I had not -taken the oath of allegiance to Great Britain, which is a necessary -qualification. After the surrender of Charleston, the whole State of -South Carolina fell into the hands of the enemy, and it was impossible -at that time to return. No sooner, however, did I acquire the means, and -an opportunity offered, than I prepared myself to go back to America. I -quitted London for that purpose, in October or November, 1782, not in a -vessel bound to Charleston, then a British garrison, and which I -certainly should have done, had I considered myself a British subject, -and which would have been most convenient, as there were vessels -constantly going from London to Charleston; but I travelled to Ostend, -and there embarked in a neutral vessel bound to St. Kitt's, from whence -it was my intention to proceed to a Danish island, and thence to some -American port in North Carolina or Georgia, from whence I could reach -the American camp. In the beginning of January, 1783, I sailed from -Ostend, but was detained a considerable time by contrary winds, and in -the middle of the month of February, was shipwrecked on the coast of -England, and was obliged to return to London in order to procure another -passage. These circumstances unavoidably prevented my return to -Charleston, until some time in November, 1783. - -On my arrival at Charleston, I was received by my countrymen as a -citizen of the State of South Carolina, and elected by their free -suffrage a member of the Legislature in November, 1784. In the August -following I was chosen, by the Governor and Council, a member of the -Privy Council, and this election was confirmed by the Legislature the -October following. In September, the same year, I was elected one of the -Wardens of the City of Charleston. In November, 1786, I was again -elected into the Legislature; again in November, 1788; I was elected at -the same time that I was elected to the House of Representatives of the -United States, the September preceding having been chosen again a Warden -of the city. - -After having stated these facts, he went on adverting to the laws -referred to in the report of the committee, which, he said, he conceived -to be applicable to the present case. - -In September, 1779, a question was discussed in the Legislature of South -Carolina, respecting the young men who were sent abroad for their -education, and it was determined that it was most for the interest of -the State, that they should be allowed to continue in Europe till they -were twenty-two years of age; after which the law provided they should -be doubly taxed if they did not return. This law might fairly be -supposed to recognize the citizenship of all the young men in a similar -predicament with himself. It allowed them all to be absent until they -were twenty-two years of age; but even after that period it did not -deprive them of the right of citizenship; it only subjected them to the -penalty of a double tax. This he contended was a sort of compact with -him, that if he chose to be absent after that time, he should suffer a -certain penalty, which, in its own nature, implied that his citizenship -remained; but before he attained that age, South Carolina was in such a -situation that her best friends were compelled to be absent, and take -refuge in distant countries. It was not till some time after that the -friends of the American cause began to assemble in that State; the -absentee law, therefore, never operated on him, and he never was doubly -taxed. - -In February, 1782, the Legislature met at Jacksonburg, and discriminated -between friend and foe, between American and British subjects, by -disposing of the estates of the latter, and banishing them; from an -inspection of the law passed at that time, it would be evident in what -light they viewed him. He had landed property in the State, but was -himself in England; yet they did not attempt to confiscate his -property, or subject him to an amercement. The absentee law was his -safeguard, he had the permission of the State to be abroad. - -If the Legislature in 1782 recognized as citizens some of those persons -whose estates were confiscated for adhering to Great Britain, and for -being disaffected to America _a fortiori_, did it not recognize as a -citizen one whose estate was not forfeited, who had not been deemed -worthy of punishment, and who had been absent under the sanction of the -law? - -By the constitution of South Carolina it appears, that no person was -eligible to a seat in the Legislature until he had resided three years, -nor to a seat in the Privy Council until he had resided five years in -the State. He had a seat in both those bodies before he had resided two -years in the State of South Carolina, and no objection was ever made on -that score. He could not have been qualified for either, had not the -people of South Carolina deemed his residence in that State, such a -residence as gained him a qualification; or had they not supposed the -qualification required in the constitution applied only to new comers -and new citizens, for whom that residence was necessary to wean them -from their local prejudices and national habits, and to attach them to -the commonwealth. Had they not, in short, supposed him to have been a -citizen during the revolution, and attached to his native State by every -tie which could bind an individual to any country. Three years' -residence was either not required of him, or his former residence was -deemed within the meaning of the constitution. - -An act to confer the right of citizenship on aliens was passed March 26, -1784. For the purpose of possessing the subordinate rights of -citizenship, such as an exemption from the alien duty, a residence of -one year, and taking the oath of allegiance, was sufficient. To confer a -right of voting at elections, a person must have been admitted a citizen -two years prior to his voting; but for the higher privileges of a -citizen, being eligible to offices of trust, to a seat in the -Legislature and Privy Council, the alien must have been naturalized by -law. Now, in November, 1784, he was elected into the Legislature, and -took his seat without objection in January, 1785, and was elected into -the Privy Council, October, 1785; all without being naturalized by law. - -In October, 1785, when he was elected to the Council, his election was -opposed, but the objection now brought forward was not then made; and -the memorialist himself, who was a member of the Legislature, voted in -favor of the choice; though, unquestionably, unless he was considered by -the Legislature as a citizen before he returned to Charleston, nothing -had afterwards occurred to make him so, and the alien act of 1784 -positively required a naturalization by act of Assembly to give him a -qualification. - -The constitution of South Carolina is silent as to citizenship, but -allowed any person to vote at elections who had resided a year in the -State, and paid a certain tax; to be a member of the Assembly he must -have resided three, and to be a Privy Councillor five years previous to -his election, but nothing was said about citizenship. The act of 1784, -however, expressly defined who should and who should not be deemed -citizens; and, consequently, all persons who did not become citizens -must have been held to be aliens, and considered so, till they had -conformed to the alien act of 1784. Now, as he was admitted to offices -of trust, to which aliens were not admissible, and as he was admitted to -them without having the rights of citizenship conferred upon him, in -pursuance of that act, it followed clearly, that the people of South -Carolina and the Legislature acknowledged him to be a citizen by virtue -of the revolution. - -He went on to observe, that, from the doctrine laid down by the -memorialist, it was difficult to ascertain when he did become a citizen -of South Carolina. When he was admitted to the bar in 1784, he did no -act which made him a citizen, the bare act of taking an oath of -qualification to an office could not convert an alien to a citizen. The -constitution seemed to imply a mere residence of a year, by giving a -right to vote, gave a right of citizenship; if that were the case, and -if his residence prior to the revolution was considered such a residence -as the constitution required, then he was a citizen, by virtue of the -constitution, after having resided a year in Carolina. Now, it was -clear, his residence prior to the war was deemed such a residence as the -constitution required; because he was admitted to vote and admitted to a -seat in the Legislature and Council by right of such residence, not -having had the requisite residence since the war, and yet being deemed -qualified. If, therefore, that part of the constitution which gave a -right of voting, in consequence of a year's residence and paying a -certain tax, virtually conferred citizenship, by giving a right to vote, -(and it appeared absurd that a right to vote should be given to persons -not citizens,) and if, also, his residence, prior to the revolution, was -deemed a sufficient residence, then he was a citizen by virtue of the -constitution. - -The points that seemed most to be relied upon by the memorialist were: - -1st. That residence was actually necessary to confer citizenship, or, in -other words, that a person could not become a citizen of a country, till -he has resided in it. - -2d. That a person could not become a citizen till he was of age to -choose his country. - -In answer to the first, he denied that residence in the country was -absolutely necessary. Was it to be supposed, he asked, that when a man -sent his son into another country for his education and improvement, the -son was thereby to lose any political benefits which might, during such -temporary absence, accrue to his country? If his father had lived a few -years longer, would there have arisen any question on this subject? -Would he not, though absent, have acquired, according to the -petitioner's own positions, a right of citizenship? And should his -death, at such an early period, not be deemed a sufficient misfortune -for him, without using that as a pretence for making him an alien? Those -who represented him in Carolina as his guardians, who were _in loco -parentis_, were residents in Carolina at the declaration of -independence. - -His property was in Carolina, his money in the treasury, assisting to -carry on the war. The declaration of independence affected him as much, -though at Geneva, as it did those in Carolina; his happiness, that of -his dearest connections, his property, were deeply interested in it: his -fate was so closely connected with that of Carolina, that any revolution -in Carolina was a revolution to him. Though a minor, as soon as he heard -of the independence of America, he considered himself an American -citizen. - -If a person could not become a citizen of a country without residing in -it, what should be said of those gentlemen who had been in Europe during -the war, and were now in high office in America? Several of them went to -Europe before the war, were there at the declaration of independence, -and did not return to America till after the war, or about the close of -it. When did their citizenship commence? According to the petitioner, -they could not become citizens of America until they returned to -America, and took an oath of allegiance to the States; but Congress -employed them in offices of great confidence, before they had returned -to America, or taken such oath. Congress, therefore, considered them -citizens, by virtue of the revolution. - -It had been said, that Carolina had called on her young men to come to -her assistance. This was not the true state of the case. Carolina -thought that her young men who were abroad for their education, should -not be taken from their studies till they were twenty-two years of age, -and doubly taxed them after that. His guardian wrote to him that he had -permission of the Legislature to be absent till he was twenty-two, and -that he should be doubly taxed after that age. - -It has been also said, that Carolina tendered an oath, to discover who -were friends, and who were enemies. In March, 1778, the Legislature of -South Carolina passed an act to oblige every free male inhabitant of -that State, above sixteen years of age, to take an oath of allegiance to -the State. As there were notoriously many persons then in the State who -were inimical to its liberties, such a step was necessary to give a -reasonable cause for obliging them to quit the country. With that view, -the oath was generally tendered only to those who were suspected or -known not to be friendly to the cause. He had been informed by several -persons, who were zealous partisans, and then in Carolina, that they had -never taken any oath of allegiance, and that it had not been required -of them on this occasion. - -The act directed, that those who did not take it, should quit the State; -and, if they returned, should be dealt with as traitors, and suffer -death. Let us examine whether this act can, in any respect, apply to the -present question. 1st. It particularly mentioned "inhabitants of the -State of South Carolina." It could not, therefore, apply to persons who -were abroad. 2dly. It directed that the oath should be taken before a -justice of peace in Carolina; this could not, therefore, extend to a -person then at Geneva. 3dly. It was directed to be taken in one month -after the passing of the act; and it was not possible that I should hear -of the existence of such an act in less than three months. 4thly. It was -directed, that if the persons refused to take it, they should quit the -State; but I was already out of it. 5thly. Those who refused to take it, -were prevented from acquiring or conveying property, and rendered -incapable of exercising any profession. But on my return to Carolina, I -took peaceable possession of my estate, part of which consisted of lands -and houses, which had been mine since the year 1770; and I was -immediately admitted to the exercise of the profession for which I was -educated. 6thly. The act directed, that if any person returned to -Carolina, after having refused to take the oath, he should be put to -death as a traitor; and, yet, on my return, never having taken the oath, -I was elected a member of the Legislature, and a Privy Councillor; and, -instead of being deemed a criminal myself, I acted as Attorney General -to punish others; and yet the petitioner, in one of his late -publications, lays great stress on the applicability of this act. - -2dly. There could be no doubt that a minor might be a citizen, from the -very words of the constitution, which admitted a person to be a member -of the House of Representatives at twenty-five, and yet required a -citizenship of seven years. This was of itself a sufficient refutation -of every thing contained in the petition on this head. The constitution -acknowledged that a person might be a citizen at eighteen; if so, there -was no reason why a person might not be one at sixteen or fourteen. - -Mr. LEE said, the committee had now to determine, whether Mr. SMITH was -a citizen of South Carolina during his absence from home, or not. If the -laws of that State recognized him as such, the question was determined, -because this House could not dispute a fact of that kind. From the -reference that has been made to the constitution and laws of South -Carolina, and the circumstances which took place under them, with -respect to Mr. SMITH, it was convincing that he was acknowledged there -to be a citizen in consequence of the revolution. - -Mr. MADISON.--I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, -whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this House or not; but -it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he has -been seven years a citizen of the United States or not. - -From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a -consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the -conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. SMITH was, on the declaration of -independence, a citizen of the United States; and unless it appears that -he has forfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had -continued a citizen until the day of his election to a seat in this -House. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided, in our -decision, by the laws and constitution of South Carolina, so far as they -can guide us; and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be -guided by principles of a general nature, so far as they are applicable -to the present case. - -It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely -defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this -kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a law existed in South -Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before -us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general -principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public -measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference -drawn from such principles. - -It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. -Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes -from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it -is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary -to investigate any other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his -birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony. - -It is well known to many gentlemen on this floor, as well as to the -public, that the petitioner is a man of talents, one who would not -lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles: yet I -cannot but think he has erred in one of the principles upon which he -grounds his charge. He supposes, when this country separated from Great -Britain, the tie of allegiance subsisted between the inhabitants of -America and the king of that nation, unless, by some adventitious -circumstance, the allegiance was transferred to one of the United -States. I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his -doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary -allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are -members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign -established by that society. This distinction will be illustrated by the -doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain, which were the laws -of this country before the revolution. The sovereign cannot make a -citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship; but this does -not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen -or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to -the whole nation; it is necessary that a national act should pass to -admit an individual member. In order to become a member of the British -Empire, where birth has not endowed the person with that privilege, he -must be naturalized by an act of Parliament. - -What was the situation of the people of America, when the dissolution of -their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I -conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the -particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth, -as a member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from -the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign. If he -were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, as a member of the -society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. -If he were a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that -society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the -allegiance, as a citizen of South Carolina, he owed to the King of Great -Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a king of that society to -which, as a society, he owed his primary allegiance. When that society -separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act, and his -allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that -society should set up; because it was through his membership of the -society of South Carolina that he owed allegiance to Great Britain. - -This reasoning will hold good, unless it is supposed that the separation -which took place between these States and Great Britain, not only -dissolved the union between those countries, but dissolved the union -among the citizens themselves: that the original compact, which made -them altogether one society, being dissolved, they could not fall into -pieces, each part making an independent society; but must individually -revert into a state of nature; but I do not conceive that this was, of -necessity, to be the case; I believe such a revolution did not -absolutely take place. But in supposing that this was the case, lies the -error of the memorialist. I conceive the colonies remained as a -political society, detached from their former connection with another -society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of -substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which -they had, for special considerations, abolished. Suppose the State of -South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish -that which now exists, and establish another form of government: surely -this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back -into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the -individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect -society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at -liberty to arrange. Mr. SMITH being then, at the declaration of -independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, -he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society, with -respect to the question of independence and change of Government; and if -afterwards he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would -have been guilty of treason against that Government to which he owed -allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor. - -So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and -decision of that State, the principles I have adduced are supported; and -I must own, that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. SMITH was -a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of -his election, and, consequently, entitled to a seat in this Legislature. - -Mr. JACKSON.--I differ widely from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. -MADISON) on the subject of allegiance and the social compact, and hold -the principles advanced by him exceedingly dangerous to many of the -States, and in particular to the one I have the honor to represent. The -situation of America, at the time of the revolution, was not properly to -be compared to a people altering their mode or form of government. Nor -were there two allegiances due, one to the community here, another to -that of Great Britain. We were all on a footing; and I contend the -principle is right, in some degree, of a total reversion to a state of -nature amongst individuals, and to a mere parental or patriarchal -authority, where the heads had families dependent on them; the former, -or individual pursued that line which appeared right in his own eyes, -and the cause which he thought just; and, in the latter case, the -children followed the will of the father, who chose for them, as the -person who brought them into life, and whose fortunes they were to -inherit. I conceive the whole allegiance or compact to have been -dissolved. Many of the States were a considerable period without -establishing constitutions or forms of government, and during that -period we were in a little better state than that of nature; and then it -was that every man made his election for an original compact, or tie, -which, by his own act, or that of his father for him, he became bound to -submit to. And what, sir, would otherwise be the result? And if the -gentleman's doctrines of birth were to be supported, those minors, who, -with British bayonets, have plundered and ravaged, nay, cruelly -butchered their more virtuous neighbors--the sons of the most inveterate -traitors, whose names deservedly sounded in every bill of confiscation; -and the minors, sons of those who sheltered themselves under the shade -of the British King, and supported his armies, if not with arms, with -the resources of war, until the hour of danger was over--those, I say, -after the blood of thousands has been spilt in the establishment of our -government, can now come forward and sneer at the foolish patriots who -endured every hardship of a seven years' war, to secure to them the -freedom and property they had no hand in defending. Sir, did we fight -for this? Was it for this the soldier watched his numerous nights, and -braved the inclemency of the seasons? Will he submit, after having -gained his point at the expense of property and the loss of -constitution, to have those sentiments established? If he will, he has -fought to little purpose indeed. - -Sir, I again contend, that when the revolution came on we were all alike -with respect to allegiances, and all under the same social tie. An -Englishman born did not conceive himself more liable to be condemned for -treason than an American, had the enemy succeeded; nor would there have -been any distinction in the laws on coming to a trial. But, sir, how -should this primary allegiance be known to belong to the less, or -American community, where the majority did not prevail. In Georgia, the -majority were opposed to American measures; agreeably to the gentleman's -reasoning, the minors must have been all on the British side; and yet -many of them, on arriving to years of discretion, behaved well and -valiantly with us. To corroborate this, sir, I will remark, that, for a -considerable period, we had no general or federal government, or form of -constitution, and yet were in arms. I would ask what state we were in -then? Neighbor was against neighbor, and brother against brother. But, -sir, the gentleman says the hardened minor will not return. Sir, -experience has proved the contrary. The Middle and Eastern States, -except Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, never had the enemy long -with them; there was not the same trial of men, and they knew not the -audacity of those villains. After having received their equivalent for, -in many cases, feigned losses, from the British crown, they are daily -returning and pushing into office. It is necessary we should guard -against them. Britain, although humiliated, yet has a longing eye upon -this country; she has yet posts in it. Although it is improbable that so -many of these people will get into Congress as to form a corrupt -majority, yet they have ambition and resentment enough to attempt it. At -this moment, sir, in Georgia, are some of the most daring, bringing -ejectments for estates which their fathers had deservedly forfeited, -although themselves had imbrued their hands in the blood of their -fellow-citizens. - -Now, to the present case: Highly as I regard the gentleman (Mr. SMITH) -as a valuable member, and esteem his abilities, I can only form my -opinion on the leave given him by the State to be absent. If that -principle is introduced into the resolution, I will vote in favor of Mr. -SMITH'S eligibility; but if not, I must decline voting. - -Which he accordingly did when the question was put. - -Mr. TUCKER hoped that the yeas and nays would be taken on this question, -not because he had any doubt in his own mind of Mr. SMITH'S right to a -seat, but because he had been solicited by Dr. Ramsay to have the yeas -and nays taken. - -The yeas and nays were taken as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Benson, Boudinot, Cadwalader, - Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Contee, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Gilman, - Goodhue, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, Leonard, - Livermore, Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Van - Rensselaer, Seney, Schureman, Scott, Sinnickson, Smith, (of - Maryland,) Sturgis, Sylvester, Thatcher, Trumbull, Tucker, - Vining, White, and Wynkoop. - - Jonathan Grout voted in the negative. - -Adjourned until Monday. - - -THURSDAY, May 28. - -_Western Lands._ - -The House, on motion of Mr. SCOTT, went into a Committee of the Whole on -the State of the Union, for the purpose of considering certain -resolutions he had prepared respecting the disposal of the land in the -Western Territory. Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair. - -Mr. SCOTT presumed there was little need of argument to prove to the -Committee the necessity of taking speedy measures with respect to the -unsettled lands in the Western Territory. The dissolution of the Board -of Treasury, and the death of the late Geographer of the United States, -are adventitious circumstances, which tend to increase the necessity. -Gentlemen are acquainted with the number of sales which have been made -to some of the citizens of the United States; they consequently know -that the United States are under an obligation to complete the surveys -of those lands which they have made sale of. They know, also, that until -this is done, they cannot receive a farthing of the millions of dollars -due on those contracts; they will not only be unable to receive the -principal, but will be paying interest for the same. Besides this, there -are other considerations for putting the business on a new footing. The -mode hitherto pursued of selling lands has been very expensive to the -United States. Perhaps, on inquiry, we shall find, that the specie it -has cost us in getting the land surveyed and sales completed, would have -purchased as many certificates as we get for the sale of the land. The -lands are also proposed to be sold in too great quantities. It is very -difficult to form a company for the purchase of a million acres. It -ought to be sold in small quantities, to make the sales more certain and -numerous; and, consequently, increase the public income. On this -principle, it will be well to open a land office, and grant the soil in -such quantities as may suit the applications. By this means more may be -expected for the purchase, than when it is struck off, at a wholesale -price, by the million acres; and in this way the land office will be -conducted without expense, which will be fixed on the purchaser, so that -the whole money the lands may bring will come into the treasury without -deduction. - -There are other considerations why a land office should be opened for -the sale of that territory in the way just mentioned. There are, at this -moment, a great number of people on the ground, who are willing to -acquire by purchase a right to the soil they are seated upon. Allured by -its fertility, the agreeableness of the climate, and the prospect of -future ease to themselves and families, they would not seek a change. -Kentucky, already full, at least there are no more valuable lands to be -got there with a clear title, can receive no more emigrants. They, -therefore, turn their wishful eyes upon the lands of the Union. They -hope to get them of Congress upon as good terms as they can procure them -of the speculators. What will these men think, who have placed -themselves on a vacant spot, anxiously waiting its disposition by the -Government, to find their pre-emption right engrossed by the purchaser -of a million of acres? Will they expose themselves to be preyed upon by -these men? They might submit to this, but they have other offers. - -There are seven thousand souls waiting for lands; they will have them -here or elsewhere; but there is some danger, if they cannot be -accommodated within the boundaries of the United States, they will do -one of two things: either move into the Spanish territory, where they -are not altogether uninvited, and become an accession of power to a -foreign nation, forming to us a dangerous frontier; or they will take -this course, move on the United States territory, and take possession -without your leave. What then will be the case? They will not pay you -money. Will you then raise a force to drive them off? That has been -tried: troops were raised, and sent under General Harmer, to effect that -purpose. They burnt the cabins, broke down the fences, and tore up the -potato patches; but three hours after the troops were gone, these people -returned again, repaired the damage, and are now settled upon the lands -in open defiance of the authority of the Union. But, nevertheless, they -are willing to pay an equitable price for those lands; and if they may -be indulged with a pre-emption to the purchase, no men will be better -friends to the Government. They went on the ground with an intention of -purchasing, and are kept there by a hope that the Government will see -their interest, and dispose of the land upon reasonable terms. But if -you do not listen to their request, if you neglect or despise their -offers, and they prove too weak to resist the omnipotent arm of -Government, they will have recourse to a neighboring Power for -protection. Hopes of that protection are now held out to them; it is my -duty to inform you of the fact. They will be led to think their interest -is separate from yours on the Atlantic shores. It will take prudent -management to prevent the fatal effects of a commotion in that country. -One of the most unhappy things we could do, would be to refuse selling -those lands in less quantities than by the million of acres: it would -certainly be a cause of disgust, if not of separation. If the object -was to prevent the settlement of the country, it would be another thing; -but that cannot be accomplished, it is not in the power of any force on -earth to prevent the increase of the population now begun; it is -therefore much better that we should incline them to friendship, than -oblige them to become our enemies. The emigrants who reach the Western -country will not stop until they find a place where they can securely -seat themselves. Your lands first offer: their fertility and -agreeableness will tempt them to pitch there; but to secure them, they -must have a well-grounded hope that the lands they cultivate may become -their own. To encourage this, you must open that territory to them, and -let them have lands for pay. You must go further, you must open the land -office in that country, because it will be impossible for the indigent -persons to travel for an office-right. You can then establish a -government among them, and derive advantages from them which are now -totally lost. They wish for your government and laws, and will be -gratified with the indulgence; but they wish also to acquire property -under them; they wish for your lands, and what good reason can be -offered to warrant a denial? If they cannot get your land, they must go -further, and obtain it of foreigners, who are desirous of having them at -any rate, who will give them lands without pay. - -These observations are sufficient, no doubt, to evince the necessity of -doing something with respect to the Western territory, and something -different from what has hitherto been done. In order that the Committee -may have a full view of my ideas, I will read the plan I have in my -hand, upon which a law may be founded. - -He here read a previous resolution, to be followed by the plan, which -was to this effect: - - _Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that - an act of Congress ought to pass for establishing and - regulating a land-office, for the sale of the vacant and - unappropriated land in the Western territory. - - [Here, by way of separate resolutions, followed in detail - the constituent parts of this office, and the routine in - which the business should be conducted, directing the - expense of the office to be supported by the fees payable - before the warrants and patents were delivered.] - -Mr. CLYMER did not believe the committee were prepared for a decision at -this time. He considered the subject to be as intricate and difficult as -it was interesting; and therefore hoped full time would be given for -investigation. Many persons had purchased large quantities of lands of -the late Congress, with a view to sell them out in small lots, to -accommodate the people who are inclined to settle upon them. If Congress -now open a land office for the sale of small quantities, it will no -doubt overcast the prospect of advantage which induced the former, and -may induce future purchasers to apply for large grants. These -observations, and others which would readily occur to every gentleman, -would satisfy the committee that they ought not to precipitate the -business. For this reason, he moved the rising of the committee. - -Mr. MADISON had no objection to the rising of the committee, as the -means of obtaining information; but he thought the business deserving of -the earliest attention. The clear and full manner in which the gentleman -from Pennsylvania had opened the subject to the view of the committee, -left no doubt on his mind of the propriety of taking some early measures -to accomplish the business in the manner suggested by that gentleman. -The facts and intelligence mentioned were too important to be passed -lightly over. He should, for the present, agree to rise, but hoped the -subject would be resumed in the House. - -The question was taken on the first resolution moved by Mr. SCOTT, and -passed in the affirmative; the others remaining on the table. - -The committee then rose and reported progress. - - -FRIDAY, June 5. - -_Admission of Rhode Island into the Union._ - -Mr. BENSON presented for consideration, the resolution which he -yesterday gave notice of his intention of introducing in relation to the -admission of Rhode Island into the Union, and moved that the House -immediately go into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, -for the purpose of discussing his proposition. - -The resolution is in the following words: - - The Congress of the United States do resolve and declare it - to be their most earnest desire, that the Legislature of - the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do - recommend to the people of that State to choose delegates - to meet in convention and to whom the constitution of the - United States is to be submitted, conformably to the - unanimous resolution of the United States in Congress - assembled, of the 28th of September, 1787. - -Mr. PAGE.--I think of Rhode Island as the worthy gentleman from New York -does; but, as a member of Congress, I doubt the propriety of this body -interfering in the business. If I put myself, for a moment, into the -situation of a citizen of a State that has refused to accede to the -constitution of the United States, I must admit that I should watch your -actions with a jealous eye; I should be apprehensive of undue influence, -if I were to see you throw your weight into the scale. But what occasion -is there for adopting such a resolution? Are gentlemen afraid to leave -them to their own unbiased judgment? For my part I am not: it will -demonstrate the goodness of the constitution, if it be adopted upon -mature consideration, without any aid but its own intrinsic value. As to -amendments, when we come to consider of them, I dare say they will be -such as to make the constitution more agreeable; but, for the present, I -think it improper to have any thing to do with the gentleman's motion; -I hope he may be prevailed upon to withdraw it; he has done his duty by -bringing it forward; but if it does not meet the approbation of the -House, it will be a useless waste of time to give it any further -discussion. The gentleman has shown sufficiently his attachment to the -Federal Government, by the earnestness he shows to have it adopted -throughout the United States. But, in addition to this, let him consider -where such measures may lead us. Because the Legislature of Rhode Island -have neglected or refused to submit the consideration of the -constitution to a convention, we are to recommend it, and express a most -earnest desire that they will comply. But suppose they decline doing -what you require, what is next to be done? I hope gentlemen will -hesitate before they go any further. I think we should be employed more -in the line of our duty, by attending to the interests of our -constituents, and completing the organization of a Government they -ordered, than to spend our time about business which is not within our -powers. Why should we interfere with the concerns of our sister States -who have not yet joined the new Government? I trust the gentleman will -see the impropriety of his motion, and agree to withdraw it. - -Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--I think we ought to go into committee, -and hear what the gentleman has to say on the subject. Though I must -acknowledge I am at present against the adoption of the resolution he -has proposed; yet it is possible, when he has stated his reasons, and -pointed out the necessity of it, that I may alter my opinion; but I -wonder why the gentleman has omitted North Carolina. - -Mr. SHERMAN.--I think Rhode Island stands in a different situation from -North Carolina. When this constitution was formed in the convention, -North Carolina was represented there; she, as well as the adopting -States, submitted that instrument to a convention of the people; but not -having adopted it, she has again called a convention, and is proceeding -to reconsider it as fast as convenient; so that such a request as is now -proposed would be unnecessary with respect to them. As Rhode Island did -not send members to the first convention, there was a delicacy in -transmitting the proceedings to them, and Congress could not, perhaps, -apply to them with the same propriety as to another. But all we are now -to consider, I believe, is, that we invite the State of Rhode Island to -join our confederacy; what will be the effect of such a measure we -cannot tell till we try it. - -Mr. MADISON.--I believe, Mr. Speaker, there are cases in which it is -prudent to avoid coming to a decision at all, and cases where it is -desirable to evade debate; if there were not cases of this kind, it -would be unnecessary to guard our discussions with the previous -question.[28] My idea on the subject now before the House is, that it -would be improper in this body to expose themselves to have such a -proposition rejected by the Legislature of the State of Rhode Island. It -would likewise be improper to express a desire on an occasion where a -free agency ought to be employed, which would carry with it all the -force of a command. How far this is contemplated on the present -occasion, I cannot tell; but I heartily wish that as little may be said -about it as possible. I conceive this to be one of the cases to which -the previous question is applicable; and, if the gentleman means to call -the House to a direct decision on this motion, I shall step between, and -interpose the previous question. - -Mr. AMES.--I am against the previous question being taken, because I -wish the House to consider the motion made by the gentleman from New -York; it is admitted to be a question of considerable importance; if it -is, it ought to be considered; otherwise, we are shutting the door on -information, and putting it out of our power to ascertain the propriety -or impropriety of the motion. - -I should be glad to know if any gentleman contemplates the State of -Rhode Island dissevered from the Union; a maritime State, situated in -the most convenient manner for the purpose of smuggling, and defrauding -our revenue. Surely, a moment's reflection will induce the House to take -measures to secure this object. Do gentlemen imagine that State will -join the Union? If they do, what is the injury arising from the adoption -of the resolution intended to be submitted to the committee? Is there -any impropriety in desiring them to consider a question which they have -not yet decided? It has been suggested by an honorable gentleman, that -this desire will operate as a demand. If a wish of Congress can bring -them into the Union, why should we decline to express such a wish? - -The previous question being insisted upon, was put--"Shall the main -question be now put?" and it was determined in the negative. Adjourned. - - -MONDAY, June 8. - -MICHAEL JENIFER STONE, from Maryland, appeared, and took his seat. - - -TUESDAY, June 16. - -_Department of Foreign Affairs._ - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill -for establishing an executive department, to be denominated the -Department of Foreign Affairs. Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair. - -The first clause, after recapitulating the title of the officer and his -duties, had these words: "To be removable from office by the President -of the United States." - -Mr. WHITE.--The constitution gives the President the power of -nominating, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, -appointing to office. As I conceive the power of appointing and -dismissing to be united in their natures, and a principle that never was -called in question in any Government, I am averse to that part of the -clause which subjects the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to be removed at -the will of the President. In the constitution, special provision is -made for the removal of the judges; that I acknowledge to be a deviation -from my principle; but as it is a constitutional provision, it is to be -admitted. In all cases not otherwise provided for in the constitution, I -take it, that the principle I have laid down is the governing one. Now -the constitution has associated the Senate with the President in -appointing the heads of departments. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs is -the head of a department; for the words of the law declare, that there -shall be a department established, at the head of which shall be an -officer to be so denominated. If, then, the Senate are associated with -the President in the appointment, they ought also to be associated in -the dismission from office. Upon the justness of this construction, I -take the liberty of reviving the motion made in the Committee of the -Whole, for striking out these words: "to be removable from office by the -President of the United States." - -Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--The gentleman has anticipated me in his -motion; I am clearly in sentiment with him that the words ought to go -out. It is in the recollection of the committee, that when the subject -was last before us, this power was excepted to; and although the words -were then allowed to stand, it was generally understood that it should -be further debated. I then was opposed to giving this power to the -President, and am still of opinion that we ought not to make this -declaration, even if he has the power by the constitution. - -I would premise that one of these two ideas is just: either that the -constitution has given the President the power of removal, and therefore -it is nugatory to make the declaration here; or it has not given the -power to him, and therefore it is improper to make an attempt to confer -it upon him. If it is not given to him by the constitution, but belongs -conjointly to the President and Senate, we have no right to deprive the -Senate of their constitutional prerogative; and it has been the opinion -of sensible men that the power was lodged in this manner. A publication -of no inconsiderable eminence in the class of political writings on the -constitution, has advanced this sentiment. The author, or authors, (for -I have understood it to be the production of two gentlemen of great -information,) of the work published under the signature of _Publius_, -has these words: - -"It has been mentioned as one of the advantages to be expected from the -co-operation of the Senate in the business of appointments, that it -would contribute to the stability of the administration. The consent of -that body would be necessary to displace as well as appoint. A change of -the Chief Magistrate, therefore, would not occasion so violent or so -general a revolution in the officers of the Government, as might be -expected if he were the sole disposer of offices. Where a man in any -station has given satisfactory evidence of his fitness for it, a new -President would be restrained from attempting a change in favor of a -person more agreeable to him, by the apprehension that the -discountenance of the Senate might frustrate the attempt, and bring some -degree of discredit upon himself. Those who can best estimate the value -of a steady administration, will be most disposed to prize a provision -which connects the official existence of public men with the approbation -or disapprobation of that body, which, from the greater permanency of -its own composition, will, in all probability, be less subject to -inconstancy than any other member of the Government." - -Here this author lays it down, that there can be no doubt of the power -of the Senate in the business of removal. Let this be as it may, I am -clear that the President alone has not the power. Examine the -constitution; the powers of the several branches of Government are there -defined; the President has particular powers assigned him; the Judiciary -have in like manner powers assigned them; but you will find no such -power as removing from office given to the President. I call upon -gentlemen to show me where it is said that the President shall remove -from office. I know they cannot do it. Now, I infer from this, that, as -the constitution has not given the President the power of removability, -it meant that he should not have that power; and this inference is -supported by that clause in the constitution which provides that all -civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on -impeachment for, and on conviction of treason, bribery, or other high -crimes and misdemeanors. Here is a particular mode described for -removing; and if there is no other mode directed, I contend that the -constitution contemplated only this mode. - -I imagine, sir, we are declaring a power in the President which may -hereafter be greatly abused; for we are not always to expect a Chief -Magistrate in whom such entire confidence can be placed as in the -present. Perhaps gentlemen are so much dazzled with the splendor of the -virtues of the present President, as not to be able to see into -futurity. The framers of the constitution did not confine their views to -the first person who was looked up to to fill the Presidential chair. If -they had, they might have omitted those checks and guards with which -the powers of the Executive are surrounded. They knew, from the course -of human events, that they could not expect to be so highly favored of -heaven as to have the blessing of his administration more than seven or -fourteen years; after which, they supposed a man might get into power, -who, it was possible, might misbehave. We ought to follow their example, -and contemplate this power in the hands of an ambitious man, who might -apply it to dangerous purposes. If we give this power to the President, -he may, from caprice, remove the most worthy men from office. His will -and pleasure will be the slight tenure by which an office is to be held, -and of consequence you render the officer the mere state-dependant, the -abject slave of a person who may be disposed to abuse the confidence his -fellow-citizens have placed in him. - -Mr. HUNTINGTON.--I think the clause ought not to stand. It was well -observed that the constitution was silent respecting the removal, -otherwise than by impeachment. I would likewise add, that it mentions no -other cause of removal than treason, bribery, or other high crimes and -misdemeanors. It does not, I apprehend, extend to cases of infirmity or -incapacity. Indeed, it appears hard to me, that after an officer has -become old in an honorable service, he should be impeached for this -infirmity. The constitution, I think, must be the only rule to guide us -on this occasion; as it is silent with respect to the removal, Congress -ought to say nothing about it, because it implies that we have a right -to bestow it, and I believe this power is not to be found among the -enumerated powers delegated by the constitution to Congress. - -Mr. SEDGWICK.--I wish the words to be struck out, because I conceive -them to be unnecessary in this place. I do conceive, Mr. Speaker, that -this officer will be the mere creature of the law; and that very little -need be said to prove to you that of necessity this ought to be the -case. I apprehend, likewise, that it requires but a small share of -abilities to point out certain causes for which a person ought to be -removed from office, without being guilty of treason, bribery, or -malfeasance; and the nature of things demands that it should be so. -Suppose, sir, a man becomes insane by the visitation of God, and is -likely to ruin our affairs, are the hands of Government to be confined -from warding off the evil? Suppose a person in office, not possessing -the talents he was judged to have at the time of the appointment, is the -error not to be corrected? Suppose he acquires vicious habits, an -incurable indolence, or total neglect of the duties of his office, which -forebode mischief to the public welfare, is there no way to arrest the -threatened danger? Suppose he becomes odious and unpopular by reason of -the measures which he pursues, (and this he may do without committing -any positive offence against the law,) must he preserve his office in -despite of the public will? Suppose him grasping at his own -aggrandizement, and the elevation of his connections, by every means -short of the treason defined by the constitution, hurrying your affairs -to the precipice of destruction, endangering your domestic tranquillity, -plundering you of the means of defence, by alienating the affections of -your allies, and promoting the spirit of discord; is there no way -suddenly to seize the worthless wretch, and hurl him from the pinnacle -of power? Must the tardy, tedious, desultory road, by way of -impeachment, be travelled to overtake the man who, barely confining -himself within the letter of the law, is employed in drawing off the -vital principle of the Government? Sir, the nature of things, the great -objects of society, the express objects of this constitution, require -that this thing should be otherwise. Well, sir, this is admitted by -gentlemen; but they say the Senate is to be united with the President in -the exercise of this power. I hope, sir, that is not the case; because -it would involve us in the most serious difficulty. Suppose a discovery -of any of those events which I have just enumerated were to take place -when the Senate is not in session, how is the remedy to be applied? This -is a serious consideration, and the evil could be avoided no other way -than by the Senate's sitting always. Surely no gentleman of this House -contemplates the necessity of incurring such an expense. I am sure it -will be very objectionable to our constituents; and yet this must be -done, or the public interest be endangered by keeping an unworthy -officer in place until that body shall be assembled from the extremes of -the Union. It has been said that there is a danger of this power being -abused if exercised by one man. Certainly the danger is as great with -respect to the Senate, who are assembled from various parts of the -continent, with different impressions and opinions. It appears to me -that such a body is more likely to misuse this power than the man whom -the united voice of America calls to the Presidential chair. As the -nature of the Government requires the power of removal, I think it is to -be exercised in this way by a hand capable of exerting itself with -effect, and, the power must be conferred upon the President by the -constitution, as the executive officer of the Government. - -Mr. MADISON.--If the construction of the constitution is to be left to -its natural course with respect to the executive powers of this -Government, I own that the insertion of this sentiment in law may not be -of material importance, though, if it is nothing more than a mere -declaration of a clear grant made by the constitution, it can do no -harm; but if it relates to a doubtful part of the constitution, I -suppose an exposition of the constitution may come with as much -propriety from the Legislature, as any other department of the -Government. If the power naturally belongs to the Government, and the -constitution is undecided as to the body which is to exercise it, it is -likely that it is submitted to the discretion of the Legislature, and -the question will depend upon its own merits. - -I am clearly of opinion with the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. -SMITH,) that we ought in this, and every other case, to adhere to the -constitution, so far as it will serve as a guide to us, and that we -ought not to be swayed in our decisions by the splendor of the character -of the present Chief Magistrate, but to consider it with respect to the -merit of men who, in the ordinary course of things, may be supposed to -fill the chair. I believe the power here declared is a high one, and, in -some respects, a dangerous one; but, in order to come to a right -decision on this point, we must consider both sides of the question: the -possible abuses which may spring from the single will of the First -Magistrate, and the abuse which may spring from the combined will of the -Executive and the Senatorial disqualification. - -When we consider that the First Magistrate is to be appointed at present -by the suffrages of three millions of people, and in all human -probability in a few years' time by double that number, it is not to be -presumed that a vicious or bad character will be selected. If the -Government of any country on the face of the earth was ever effectually -guarded against the election of ambitious or designing characters to the -first office of the State, I think it may with truth be said to be the -case under the constitution of the United States. With all the -infirmities incident to a popular election, corrected by the particular -mode of conducting it, as directed under the present system, I think we -may fairly calculate that the instances will be very rare in which an -unworthy man will receive that mark of the public confidence which is -required to designate the President of the United States. Where the -people are disposed to give so great an elevation to one of their -fellow-citizens, I own that I am not afraid to place my confidence in -him, especially when I know he is impeachable for any crime or -misdemeanor before the Senate, at all times; and that, at all events, he -is impeachable before the community at large every four years, and -liable to be displaced if his conduct shall have given umbrage during -the time he has been in office. Under these circumstances, although the -trust is a high one, and in some degree, perhaps, a dangerous one, I am -not sure but it will be safer here than placed where some gentlemen -suppose it ought to be. - -Mr. VINING.--I hoped, Mr. Chairman, after the discussion this subject -had received on a former occasion, that it would have been unnecessary -to re-examine it. The arguments against the clause are reiterated: but, -I trust, without a chance of success. They were fully answered before; -and I expect the impressions made at that time are not already effaced. -The House, as well as the Committee of the Whole, have determined that -those words shall be inserted in the bill; the special committee could -therefore do no less than place them where they are; a deference is due -to the decision of the House. - -The House has determined to make a declaration of their construction of -the constitution. I am perfectly in sentiment with the majority on this -occasion; and contend, that if this power is not in the President, it is -not vested in any body whatever. It cannot be within the legislative -power of the Senate, because it is of an adverse nature; it cannot be -within the executive power of the Senate, because they possess none but -what is expressly granted by the constitution. If gentlemen will point -out where the constitution confers this power upon the Senate, I will -read my recantation, and subscribe to the justness of their doctrine. - -I am not satisfied that removability shall be acquired only by -impeachment. Were the advocates of this doctrine aware of its -consequences, when they advanced it? The Senate has the sole power of -trying impeachments; the President is here out of the question. If no -officer can be constitutionally removed but by impeachment, it applies -to subordinate officers as well as heads of departments. For the -constitution only gives power to Congress to establish officers by law, -and vests the appointment in the President. If these officers are not -removable but by impeachment, what is to become of our affairs, when any -of the accidents occur which were enumerated by the gentleman from -Massachusetts (Mr. SEDGWICK)? Are we to take the circuitous route of -impeachment? The dilatory and inefficient process by that mode, will not -apply the remedy to the evil till it is too late to be of advantage. -Experience has fixed an eternal stigma upon the system of impeachment; -witness the case I mentioned, the other day, of Warren Hastings before -the British Lords; what delays and uncertainty with the forms of trial, -details of evidence, arguments of counsel, and deliberate decision! I -ask gentlemen, can there be a greater evil than this in any Government? -Why, then, will gentlemen advocate a doctrine so obnoxious to the -principles of the constitution, when a more favorable construction is at -hand? - -Mr. WHITE.--Mention has been made of impeachments, as the only mode of -removing an officer. I will explain my ideas on this point, in order -that the committee may be masters of my particular objections to the -clause. I consider impeachments necessary to be employed in cases -respecting an officer who is appointed during good behavior. Thus the -judges can only be removed by impeachment. The President and Vice -President hold their offices for the terms mentioned in the -constitution, not liable to be removed from office in any other way. -These circumstances are a deviation from my general principle; but have -nevertheless a proper ground to be supported on. The electors who -appoint the President, cannot assemble to exercise the authority which -would naturally be in them. With respect to the judges, it is found -necessary for the proper and uncorrupt administration of justice, and -the security of freedom, to have them independent in their stations, so -that they be not removable at pleasure. To them, therefore, the doctrine -of impeachment is peculiarly applicable. It may properly be extended -further, in cases where the President is desirous of retaining an -officer who ought not to be retained. This House has the power of -controlling him, and may impeach the officer before the Senate. In -either of these three cases impeachments are necessary. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--This is a question, Mr. Speaker, that requires full -consideration, and ought only to be settled on the most candid -discussion. It certainly involves the right of the Senate to a very -important power. At present, I am so impressed with the importance of -the subject, that I dare not absolutely decide on any principle, -although I am firmly persuaded we ought to retain the clause in the -bill; and, so far as it has been examined, I agree that it is a -legislative construction of the constitution, necessary to be settled -for the direction of your officers. But if it is a deviation from the -constitution, or in the least degree an infringement upon the authority -of the other branch of the Legislature, I shall most decidedly be -against it. But I think it will appear, on a full consideration of this -business, that we can do no otherwise than agree to this construction, -in order to preserve to each department the full exercise of its powers, -and to give this House security for the proper conduct of the officers -who are to execute the laws. - -Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--I have attended to the arguments of the -gentlemen who oppose the motion for striking out, and I apprehend that -their reasoning is not perfectly consistent. The construction of some -gentlemen is, that the power of removal is given to the President by the -constitution. Others are of opinion that the constitution is silent; and -therefore the House ought to give it. To oppose these adverse arguments, -I must return to my strong ground on which my opponents dare not -venture. I state again, that if the constitution has given the power, it -is unnecessary to give it here; or if it has not given it, we have no -right to confer it, because it is not within the enumerated powers -delegated to Congress. - -Gentlemen have said that it is proper to give a legislative construction -of the constitution. I differ with them on this point. I think it an -infringement of the powers of the Judiciary. It is said, we ought not to -blend the legislative, executive, or judiciary powers, further than is -done by the constitution; and yet the advocates for preserving each -department pure and untouched by the others, call upon this House to -exercise the powers of the judges in expounding the constitution. What -authority has this House to explain the law? But if it has this -privilege, the Senate is also invested with it as part of the -Legislature; and, in exercising it on the present question, we shall be -likely to differ. If the constitution is silent, and gentlemen admit -this, it is possible the Senate may view it with a favorable eye to -their own right, and reject the bill on account of this clause. A great -deal of mischief has arisen in the several States, by the Legislatures -undertaking to decide constitutional questions. Sir, it is the duty of -the Legislature to make laws; your judges are to expound them. - -Mr. GERRY.--Some gentlemen consider this as a question of policy; but to -me it appears a question of constitutionality, and I presume it will be -determined on that point alone. The best arguments I have heard urged on -this occasion came from the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. -MADISON.) He says the constitution has vested the executive power in the -President; and that he has a right to exercise it under the -qualifications therein made. He lays it down as a maxim, that the -constitution vesting in the President the executive power, naturally -vests him with the power of appointment and removal. Now I would be glad -to know from that gentleman by what means we are to decide this -question. Is his maxim supported by precedent drawn from the practice of -the individual States? The direct contrary is established. In many cases -the Executives are not in particular vested with the power of -appointment; and do they exercise that power by virtue of their office? -It will be found that other branches of the Government make -appointments. How then can gentlemen assert that the powers of -appointment and removal are incident to the Executive Department of -Government? To me it appears at best but problematical. Neither is it -clear to me that the power that appoints naturally possesses the power -of removal. As we have no certainty on either of these points, I think -we must consider it as established by the constitution. - -It appears very clear to me, that however this power may be distributed -by the constitution, the House of Representatives have nothing to do -with it. Why then should we interfere in the business? Are we afraid -that the President and Senate are not sufficiently informed to know -their respective duties? Our interposition argues that they want -judgment, and are not able to adjust their powers without the wisdom of -this House to assist them; to say the least on this point, it must be -deemed indelicate for us to intermeddle with them. If the fact is, as we -seem to suspect, that they do not understand the constitution, let it go -before the proper tribunal; the judges are the constitutional umpires on -such questions. Why, let me ask gentlemen, shall we commit an infraction -of the constitution for fear the Senate or President should not comply -with its directions? - -Mr. AMES.--When this question was agitated at a former period, I took no -part in the debate. I believe it was then proposed, without any idea or -intention of drawing on a lengthy discussion, and to me it appeared to -be well understood and settled by the House; but since it has been -reiterated and contested again, I feel it my bounden duty to deliver the -reasons for voting in the manner I then did, and shall now do. Mr. -Chairman, I look upon every question which touches the constitution as -serious and important, and therefore worthy of the fullest discussion, -and the most solemn decision. I believe, on the present occasion, we may -come to something near certainty, by attending to the leading principles -of the constitution. In order that the good purposes of a Federal -Government should be answered, it was necessary to delegate considerable -powers; and the principle upon which the grant was made, intended to -give sufficient power to do all possible good, but to restrain the -rulers from doing mischief. - -The constitution places all executive power in the hands of the -President, and could he personally execute all the laws, there would be -no occasion for establishing auxiliaries; but the circumscribed powers -of human nature in one man, demand the aid of others. When the objects -are widely stretched out, or greatly diversified, meandering through -such an extent of territory as that the United States possess, a -minister cannot see with his own eyes every transaction, or feel with -his hands the minutiæ that pass through his department. He must -therefore have assistants. But in order that he may be responsible to -his country, he must have a choice in selecting his assistants, a -control over them, with power to remove them when he finds the -qualifications which induced their appointment cease to exist. There are -officers under the constitution who hold their office by a different -tenure--your judges are appointed during good behavior; and from the -delicacy and peculiar nature of their trust, it is right it should be -so, in order that they may be independent and impartial in administering -justice between the Government and its citizens. But the removability of -the one class, or immovability of the other, is founded on the same -principle, the security of the people against the abuse of power. Does -any gentleman imagine that an officer is entitled to his office as to an -estate? Or does the Legislature establish them for the convenience of an -individual? For my part I conceive it intended to carry into effect the -purposes for which the constitution was intended. - -The executive powers are delegated to the President, with a view to have -a responsible officer to superintend, control, inspect, and check the -officers necessarily employed in administering the laws. The only bond -between him and those he employs, is the confidence he has in their -integrity and talents; when that confidence ceases, the principal ought -to have power to remove those whom he can no longer trust with safety. -If an officer shall be guilty of neglect or infidelity, there can be no -doubt but he ought to be removed; yet there may be numerous causes for -removal which do not amount to a crime. He may propose to do a -mischief; but I believe the mere intention would not be cause of -impeachment. He may lose the confidence of the people upon suspicion, in -which case it would be improper to retain him in service; he ought to be -removed at any time, when, instead of doing the greatest possible good, -he is likely to do an injury to the public interest by being continued -in the administration. - -I presume gentlemen will generally admit that officers ought to be -removed when they become obnoxious; but the question is, how shall this -power be exercised? It will not, I apprehend, be contended, that all -officers hold their offices during good behavior. If this be the case, -it is a most singular Government. I believe there is not another in the -universe that bears the least semblance to it in this particular; such a -principle, I take it, is contrary to the nature of things. But the -manner how to remove is the question. If the officer misbehaves, he can -be removed by impeachment; but in this case is impeachment the only mode -of removal? It would be found very inconvenient to have a man continued -in office after being impeached, and when all confidence in him was -suspended or lost. Would not the end of impeachment be defeated by this -means? If Mr. Hastings, who was mentioned by the gentleman from Delaware -(Mr. VINING) preserved his command in India, could he not defeat the -impeachment now pending in Great Britain? If that doctrine obtains in -America, we shall find impeachments come too late; while we are -preparing the process, the mischief will be perpetrated, and the -offender will escape. I apprehend it will be as frequently necessary to -prevent crimes as to punish them; and it may often happen that the only -prevention is by removal. The superintending power possessed by the -President, will perhaps enable him to discover a base intention before -it is ripe for execution. It may happen that the Treasurer may be -disposed to betray the public chest to the enemy, and so injure the -Government beyond the possibility of reparation; should the President be -restrained from removing so dangerous an officer, until the slow -formality of an impeachment was complied with, when the nature of the -case rendered the application of a sudden and decisive remedy -indispensable? - -But it will, I say, be admitted, that an officer may be removed. The -question then is, by whom? Some gentlemen say by the President alone; -and others, by the President, by and with the advice of the Senate. By -the advocates of the latter mode, it is alleged, that the constitution -is in the way of the power of removal being by the President alone. If -this is absolutely the case, there is an end to all further inquiry. But -before we suffer this to be considered as an insuperable impediment, we -ought to be clear that the constitution prohibits him the exercise of -what, on a first view, appears to be a power incident to the executive -branch of the Government. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) has -made so many observations to evince the constitutionality of the clause, -that it is unnecessary to go over the ground again. I shall therefore -confine myself to answer only some remarks made by the gentleman from -South Carolina, (Mr. SMITH.) The powers of the President are defined in -the constitution; but it is said, that he is not expressly authorized to -remove from office. If the constitution is silent also with respect to -the Senate, the argument may be retorted. If this silence proves that -the power cannot be exercised by the President, it certainly proves that -it cannot be exercised by the President, by and with the advice and -consent of the Senate. The power of removal is incident to Government; -but not being distributed by the constitution, it will come before the -Legislature, and, like every other omitted case, must be supplied by -law. - -Mr. LIVERMORE.--I am for striking out this clause, Mr. Chairman, upon -the principles of the constitution, from which we are not at liberty to -deviate. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK,) -calls the Minister of Foreign Affairs the creature of the law, and that -very properly; because the law establishes the office, and has the power -of creating him in what shape the Legislature pleases. This being the -case, we have a right to create the office under such limitations and -restrictions as we think proper, provided we can obtain the consent of -the Senate; but it is very improper to draw as a conclusion, from having -the power of giving birth to a creature, that we should therefore bring -forth a monster, merely to show we had such power. I call that creature -a monster that has not the proper limbs and features of its species. I -think the creature we are forming is unnatural in its proportions. It -has been often said, that the constitution declares the President, by -and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint this -officer. This, to be sure, is very true, and so is the conclusion which -an honorable gentleman (Mr. WHITE) from Virginia drew from it, that an -officer must be discharged in the way he was appointed. - -I believe, Mr. Chairman, this question depends upon a just construction -of a short clause in the constitution. "The President shall have power, -by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint -ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of Supreme -Court, and all other officers of the United States." Here is no -difference with respect to the power of the President to make treaties -and appoint officers, only it requires in the one case a larger majority -to concur than in the other. I will not by any means suppose that -gentlemen mean, when they argue in favor of removal by the President -alone, to contemplate the extension of the power to the repeal of -treaties; because, if they do, there will be little occasion for us to -sit here. But let me ask these gentlemen, as there is no real or -imaginary distinction between the appointment of ambassadors and -ministers, or Secretaries of Foreign Affairs, whether they mean that the -President should have the power of recalling or discarding ambassadors -and military officers, for the words in the constitution are "all other -officers," as well as he can remove your Secretary of Foreign Affairs. -To be sure, they cannot extend it to the judges; because they are -secured under a subsequent article, which declares they shall hold their -offices during good behavior; they have an inheritance which they cannot -be divested of, but on conviction of some crime. But I presume gentlemen -mean to apply it to all those who have not an inheritance in their -offices. In this case, it takes the whole power of the President and -Senate to create an officer, but half the power can uncreate him. Surely -a law passed by the whole Legislature cannot be repealed by one branch -of it; so I conceive, in the case of appointments, it requires the same -force to supersede an officer as to put him in office. - -I acknowledge, that the clause relative to impeachment is for the -benefit of the people; it is intended to enable their representatives to -bring a bad officer to justice who is screened by the President; but I -do not conceive, with the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. -SMITH,) that it by any means excludes the usual ways of superseding -officers. It is said in the constitution, that the House shall have the -power of choosing their own officers. We have chosen a clerk, and, I am -satisfied, a very capable one; but will any gentleman contend we may not -discharge him and choose another and another as often as we see cause? -And so it is in every other instance; where they have the power to make, -they have likewise the power to unmake. It will be said by gentlemen, -that the power to make does not imply the power of unmaking; but I -believe they will find very few exceptions in the United States. - -Mr. SHERMAN.--I wish, Mr. Chairman, that the words may be left out of -the bill, without giving up the question either way as to the propriety -of the measure. Many of the honorable gentlemen who advocate this clause -have labored to show that the President has, constitutionally, the power -of removal. If this be a well-founded opinion, they ought not to let the -words remain in the bill, because they are of such a nature as to imply -that he had not the power before it was granted him by the law. - -If gentlemen would consent to make a general law, declaring the proper -mode of removal, I think we should acquire a greater degree of -unanimity, which, on this occasion, must be better than carrying the -question against a large minority. - -The call for the question being now very general, it was put, shall the -words "to be removable by the President," be struck out? - -It was determined in the negative; being yeas 20, nays 34. - - -WEDNESDAY, June 24. - -_Department of Foreign Affairs._ - -The engrossed bill "for establishing an Executive Department, to be -denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs," was read the third time. - -Mr. SUMTER.--This bill appears to my mind so subversive of the -constitution, and in its consequences so destructive to the liberties of -the people, that I cannot consent to let it pass without expressing my -detestation of the principle it contains. I do it in this public manner, -in order to fulfil what I think to be my duty to my country, and to -discharge myself of any concern in a matter that I do not approve. - -Mr. PAGE discovered the fate of the bill; he knew it must pass, but, -nevertheless, he would decidedly give it his negative, and he hoped the -respectable minority which he had the honor of voting with hitherto on -the question of removability, would unite with him firmly in their -opposition; and in order to record to their constituents the sentiments -they maintained, he moved to take the question by the yeas and nays. - -One-fifth of the members present joined in requiring the yeas and nays; -whereupon they were taken, and are, - - YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Brown, Burke, - Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Contee, Fitzsimons, Gilman, - Goodhue, Griffin, Hartley, Heister, Huger, Lawrence, Lee, - Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, - Seney, Sinnickson, Sylvester, Trumbull, and Vining.--29. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Coles, Gerry, Grout, Hathorn, Huntington, - Jackson, Leonard, Livermore, Matthews, Page, Parker, - Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Sherman, Smith, of Maryland, - Smith, of South Carolina, Stone, Sturgis, Sumter, Thatcher, - Tucker, and White.--22. - -So the question was determined in the affirmative, and the clerk -directed to carry the bill to the Senate, and desire their concurrence. - - -_Department of War._ - -The House then went into a committee on the bill for establishing the -Department of War. Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair. - -Mr. BENSON proposed, with respect to the Secretary's being removable by -the President, a similar amendment to that which had been obtained in -the bill establishing the Department of Foreign Affairs. - -Mr. SHERMAN thought it unnecessary to load this bill with any words on -that subject; he conceived the gentleman ought to be satisfied with -having had the principle established in the other bill. - -Mr. PAGE was of the same opinion, but further thought it argued a doubt, -even in the mind of the majority, of the truth of their principles, and -they wanted, by repetition, to force that upon the mind which was not -impressed by right reason. The question on the amendment was taken -without further debate, and carried in the affirmative, twenty-four to -twenty-two. - -Some other small alterations being made, the committee rose, and -reported the bill as amended; which being partly considered, the House -adjourned. - - -THURSDAY, June 25. - -_Department of War._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the amendments reported by the -Committee of the Whole to the bill for establishing the War Department; -which being agreed to, the bill was ordered to be engrossed. - - -_Treasury Department._ - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill -for establishing the Treasury Department, Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair. The -second clause being under consideration, - -Mr. PAGE objected to the words making it the duty of the Secretary to -"digest and report plans for the improvement and management of the -revenue, and the support of the public credit;" observing that it might -be well enough to enjoin upon him the duty of making out and preparing -estimates; but to go any further would be a dangerous innovation upon -the constitutional privilege of this House; it would create an undue -influence within these walls, because members might be led, by the -deference commonly paid to men of abilities, who give an opinion in a -case they have thoroughly studied, to support the minister's plan, even -against their own judgment. Nor would the mischief stop here; it would -establish a precedent which might be extended, until we admitted all the -ministers of the Government on the floor, to explain and support the -plans they have digested and reported: thus laying a foundation for an -aristocracy or a detestable monarchy. - -Mr. TUCKER.--The objection made by the gentleman near me is, -undoubtedly, well founded. I think it proper to strike out all the words -alluded to, because the following are sufficient to answer every -valuable purpose, namely, "to prepare and report estimates of the public -revenue and public expenditures." If we authorize him to prepare and -report plans, it will create an interference of the executive with the -legislative powers; it will abridge the particular privilege of this -House; for the constitution expressly declares, that all bills for -raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. How can -the business originate in this House, if we have it reported to us by -the Minister of Finance? All the information that can be required, may -be called for, without adopting a clause that may undermine the -authority of this House, and the security of the people. The -constitution has pointed out the proper method of communication between -the executive and legislative departments; it is made the duty of the -President to give, from time to time, information to Congress of the -state of the Union, and to recommend to their consideration such -measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. If revenue plans -are to be prepared and reported to Congress, here is the proper person -to do it; he is responsible to the people for what he recommends, and -will be more cautious than any other person to whom a less degree of -responsibility is attached. Under this clause, you give the Secretary of -the Treasury a right to obtrude upon you plans, not only undigested, but -even improper to be taken up. - -I hope the House is not already weary of executing and sustaining the -powers vested in them by the constitution; and yet it would argue that -we thought ourselves less adequate to determine than any individual what -burthens our constituents are equal to bear. This is not answering the -high expectations that were formed of our exertions for the general -good, or of our vigilance in guarding our own and the people's rights. -In short, Mr. Chairman, I can never agree to have money bills originated -and forced upon this House by a man destitute of legislative authority, -while the constitution gives such power solely to the House of -Representatives; for this reason, I cheerfully second the motion for -striking out the words. - -Mr. BENSON.--If the proposed amendment prevail, the bill will be nearly -nugatory. The most important service that can be rendered by a gentleman -who is at the head of the Department of Finance, is that of digesting -and reporting plans for the improvement of the revenue, and supporting -public credit; and, for my part, I shall despair of ever seeing your -revenue improved, or the national credit supported, unless the business -is submitted into the hands of an able individual. I thought this -subject was well understood, from the debate on the original motion. It -was then insisted upon by an honorable gentleman, Mr. GERRY, who opposed -the appointment of a Secretary of the Treasury, that his important -duties ought to be "to consider of the means of improving the revenue, -and introducing economy into the expenditures, and to recommend general -systems of revenue." Now, what more than this is required by the clause? - -For my part, I am at a loss to see how the privilege of the House is -infringed. Can any of the Secretary's plans be called bills? Will they -be reported in such a form even? But admitting they were, they do not -become bills, unless they are sanctioned by the House; much less is the -danger that they will pass into laws without full examination by both -Houses and the President. From this view of the subject, so far is the -clause from appearing dangerous, that I believe it discovers itself to -be not only perfectly safe, but essentially necessary; and without it is -retained, the great object of the bill will be defeated. - -Mr. GOODHUE.--We certainly carry our dignity to the extreme, when we -refuse to receive information from any but ourselves. It must be -admitted, that the Secretary of the Treasury will, from the nature of -his office, be better acquainted with the subject of improving the -revenue or curtailing expense, than any other person; if he is thus -capable of affording useful information, shall we reckon it hazardous to -receive it? For my part, when I want to attain a particular object, I -never shut my ears against information likely to enable me to secure it. - -Mr. PAGE.--I can never consent to establish, by law, this interference -of an executive officer in business of legislation; it may be well -enough in an absolute monarchy, for a minister to come to a Parliament -with his plans in his hands, and order them to be enregistered or -enacted; but this practice does not obtain even in a limited monarchy -like Britain. The minister there, who introduces his plans, must be a -member of the House of Commons. The man would be treated with -indignation, who should attempt in that country to bring his schemes -before Parliament in any other way. Now, why we, in the free republic of -the United States, should introduce such a novelty in legislation, I am -at a loss to conceive. The constitution expressly delegates to us the -business of the revenue; our constituents have confidence in us, because -they suppose us acquainted with their circumstances; they expect, in -consequence of this knowledge, we will not attempt to load them with -injudicious or oppressive taxes; but they have no such security, if we -are blindly to follow perhaps an unskilful minister. It does not answer -me, Mr. Chairman, to say the House has a right of deliberating and -deciding upon these plans, because we may be told, if you prune away -this part or that part of the system, you destroy its efficiency. -Therefore we must act with caution; we must either take or reject the -whole; but if we reject the whole, sir, we are to depend upon ourselves -for a substitute. How are we to form one? For my part, I should not -despair, that the united wisdom of this House could procure one; but if -we are to do this in the second instance, why cannot we attempt it in -the first? I have no objection to our calling upon this or any other -officer for information; but it is certainly improper to have him -authorized by law to intrude upon us whatever he may think proper. I -presume, sir, it is not supposed by the worthy gentleman from New York -(Mr. BENSON) that we shall be at a loss to conceive what information -would be useful or proper for us to require, that we must have this -officer to present us with what he chooses. When the President requires -an opinion of him, the constitution demands him to give it; so under the -law, let him send his opinion in here when it is asked for. If any -further power is given him, it will come to this at last: we, like the -Parliament of Paris, shall meet to register what he dictates. Either -these reports of the Secretary are to have weight, or they are not; if -they are to have weight, the House acts under a foreign influence, which -is altogether improper and impolitic; if they are to have no weight, we -impose a useless duty upon the officer, and such as is no mark of our -wisdom. - -Mr. AMES hoped the subject might be treated with candor and liberality; -he supposed the objections were made on those principles, and therefore -required a serious answer. The worthy gentleman who first expressed his -aversion to the clause seemed to be apprehensive that the power of -reporting plans by the Secretary would be improper, because it appeared -to him to interfere with the legislative duty of the House, which the -House ought not to relinquish. - -Whenever it is a question, Mr. Speaker, said he, whether this House -ought, or ought not, to establish offices to exercise a part of the -power of either branch of the Government, there are two points which I -take into consideration, in order to lead my mind to a just decision; -first, whether the proposed disposition is useful; and, second, whether -it can be safely guarded from abuse. Now I take it, sir, that the House -by their order for bringing in a bill to establish the Treasury -Department in this way, have determined the point of utility; or, have -they erred in adopting that opinion, I will slightly make an inquiry, -How does it tend to general utility? The Secretary is presumed to -acquire the best knowledge of the subject of finance of any member of -the community. Now, if this House is to act on the best knowledge of -circumstances, it seems to follow logically that the House must obtain -evidence from that officer; the best way of doing this will be publicly -from the officer himself, by making it his duty to furnish us with it. -It will not be denied, sir, that this officer will be better acquainted -with his business than other people can be. It lies within his -department to have a comprehensive view of the state of the public -revenues and expenditures. He will, by his superintending power over the -collection, be able to discover abuses, if any, in that department, and -to form the most eligible plan to remedy or prevent the evil. From his -information respecting money transactions, he may be able to point out -the best mode for supporting the public credit; indeed, these seem to me -to be the great objects of his appointment. - -Mr. LIVERMORE.--I shall vote for striking out the clause, because I -conceive it essentially necessary so to do. The power of originating -money bills within these walls, I look upon as a sacred deposit which we -may neither violate nor divest ourselves of, although at first view it -may appear of little importance who shall form a plan for the -improvement of the revenue. Although every information tending to effect -this great object may be gratefully received by this House, yet it -behoves us to consider to what this clause may lead, and where it may -terminate. Might it not, by construction, be said that the Secretary of -the Treasury has the sole right of digesting and reporting plans for the -improvement of the revenue? This construction may appear a little -extraordinary, but it is not more so than some constructions heretofore -put upon other words; but however extraordinary it may be, it may take -place, and I think the best way to avoid it, will be to leave out the -words altogether. It is certainly improper that any person, not -expressly intrusted by our constituents with the privilege of taking -their money, should direct the quantum and the manner in which to take -it. - -Mr. SEDGWICK.--If the principle prevails for curtailing this part of the -Secretary's duty, we shall lose the advantages which the proposed system -was intended to acquire. The improvement and management of the revenue -is a subject that must be investigated by a man of abilities and -indefatigable industry, if we mean to have our business advantageously -done. If honorable gentlemen will for a moment consider the peculiar -circumstances of this country, the means of information attainable by -the individual members of this House, and compare them with the object -they have to pursue, they will plainly perceive the necessity of calling -to their aid the advantages resulting from an establishment like the one -contemplated in the bill; if they weigh these circumstances carefully, -their objections, I trust, will vanish. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--A proper jealousy for the liberty of the people is -commendable in those who are appointed and sworn to be its faithful -guardians; but when this spirit is carried so far as to lose sight of -its object, and instead of leading to avoid, urges on to the precipice -of ruin, we ought to be careful how we receive its impressions. So far -is the present measure from being injurious to liberty, that it is -consistent with the true interest and prosperity of the community. Are -gentlemen apprehensive we shall be led by this officer to adopt plans we -should otherwise reject? For my part, I have a better opinion of the -penetration of the representation of the people than to dread any such -visionary phantom. - -Let us consider whether this power is essentially necessary to the -Government. I take it to be conceded by the gentlemen, that it is -absolutely so. They say they are willing to receive the information -because it may be serviceable, but do not choose to have it communicated -in this way. If the Secretary of the Treasury is the proper person to -give the information, I can see no other mode of obtaining it that would -be so useful. Do gentlemen mean that he shall give it piecemeal, by way -of question and answer? This will tend more to mislead than to inform -us. If we would judge upon any subject, it would be better to have it in -one clear and complete view, than to inspect it by detachments; we -should lose the great whole in the minutiæ, and, instead of a system, -should present our constituents with a structure composed of discordant -parts, counteracting and defeating the operation of each other's -properties. - -Mr. HARTLEY rose to express his sentiments, as he did on every occasion, -with diffidence in his own abilities; but he looked upon the clause as -both unsafe and inconsistent with the constitution. He thought the -gentleman last up proved too much by his arguments; he proved that the -House of Representatives was, in fact, unnecessary and useless; that one -person could be a better judge of the means to improve and manage the -revenue, and support the national credit, than the whole body of -Congress. This kind of doctrine, Mr. Chairman, is indelicate in a -republic, and strikes at the root of all legislation founded upon the -great democratic principle of representation. It is true, mistakes, and -very injurious ones, have been made on the subject of finance by some -State Legislatures; but I would rather submit to this evil, than, by my -voice, establish tenets subversive of the liberties of my country. - -Notwithstanding what I have said, I am clearly of opinion it is -necessary and useful to take measures for obtaining other information -than what members can acquire in their characters as citizens; -therefore, I am in favor of the present bill; but I think these words -too strong. If it was modified so as to oblige him to have his plans -ready for this House when they are asked for, I should be satisfied; but -to establish a legal right in an officer to obtrude his sentiments -perpetually on this body is disagreeable, and it is dangerous, inasmuch -as the right is conveyed in words of doubtful import, and conveying -powers exclusively vested by the constitution in this House. - -Mr. GERRY expressed himself in favor of the object of the clause; that -was, to get all the information possible for the purpose of improving -the revenue, because he thought this information would be much required, -if he judged from the load of public debt, and the present inability of -the people to contribute largely towards its reduction. - -He could not help observing, however, the great degree of importance -they were giving this, and the other executive officers. If the doctrine -of having prime and great ministers of state was once well established, -he did not doubt but we should soon see them distinguished by a green or -red ribbon, or other insignia of court favor and patronage. He wished -gentlemen were aware of what consequences these things lead to, that -they might exert a greater degree of caution. - -The practice of Parliament in Britain is first to determine the sum they -will grant, and then refer the subject to a Committee of Ways and Means: -this might be a proper mode to be pursued in this House. - -Do gentlemen, said he, consider the importance of the power they give -the officer by the clause? Is it not part of our legislative authority? -And does not the constitution expressly declare that the House solely -shall exercise the power of originating revenue bills? Now, what is -meant by reporting plans? It surely includes the idea of originating -money bills, that is, a bill for improving the revenue, or, in other -words, for bringing revenue into the treasury. For if he is to report -plans, they ought to be reported in a proper form, and complete. This -is giving an indirect voice in legislative business to an executive -officer. If this be not the meaning of the clause, let gentlemen say -what is, and to what extent it shall go; but if my construction is true, -we are giving up the most essential privilege vested in us by the -constitution. But what does this signify? The officer is responsible, -and we are secure. This responsibility is made an argument in favor of -every extension of power. I should be glad to understand the term. -Gentlemen say the Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for the -information he gives the House--in what manner does this responsibility -act? Suppose he reports a plan for improving the revenue, by a tax which -he thinks judicious, and one that will be agreeable to the people of the -United States; but he happens to be deceived in his opinion, that his -tax is obnoxious, and excites a popular clamor against the -minister--what is the advantage of his responsibility? Nothing. Few men -deserve punishment for the error of opinion; all that could be done -would be to repeal the law, and be more cautious in future in depending -implicitly on the judgment of a man who had led us into an impolitic -measure. Suppose the revenue should fall short of his estimate, is he -responsible for the balance? This will be carrying the idea further than -any Government hitherto has done. What then is the officer to be -responsible for, which should induce the House to vest in him such -extraordinary powers? - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--I do not see consequences so dangerous as some gentlemen -seem to apprehend; nor did they appear to them, I believe, when the -subject was last under consideration. I recollect, Mr. Chairman, that -some difficulty was made about establishing this office, because it was -feared we could not find men of sufficient abilities to fill it. The -duties were then properly deemed of a high and important nature, and -enumerated as those proposed in the bill. It was supposed by an -honorable gentleman, that the powers here expressed might be lodged in a -board, because an individual was incompetent to undertake the whole. But -now we have the wonderful sagacity of discovering, that if an individual -is appointed, he will have capacity to form plans for improving the -revenue in such an advantageous manner, as to supersede the necessity of -having the representatives of the people consulted on the business: he -will not only perform the usual duties of a Treasury Board, but be -adequate to all purposes of legislation. I appeal to the gentleman for -his usual candor on this occasion, which will assure us that he has -wire-drawn his arguments. - -Mr. MADISON.--After hearing and weighing the various observations of -gentlemen, I am at a loss to see where the danger lies. These are -precisely the words used by the former Congress, on two occasions, one -in 1783, the other in a subsequent ordinance, which established the -Revenue Board. The same power was also annexed to the office of -Superintendent of Finance, but I never yet heard that any inconvenience -or danger was experienced from the regulation; perhaps, if the power had -been more fully and frequently exercised, it might have contributed more -to the public good. - -There is a small probability, though it is but small, that an officer -may derive a weight from this circumstance, and have some degree of -influence upon the deliberations of the Legislature; but compare the -danger likely to result from this clause, with the danger and -inconvenience of not having well-formed and digested plans, and we shall -find infinitely more to apprehend. Inconsistent, unproductive, and -expensive schemes, will be more injurious to our constituents than the -undue influence which the well-digested plans of a well-informed officer -can have. From a bad administration of the Government, more detriment -will arise than from any other source. The want of information has -occasioned much inconvenience and unnecessary burthens under some of the -State Governments. Let it be our care to avoid those rocks and shoals in -our political voyage, which have injured, and nearly proved fatal to, -many of our cotemporary navigators. - -A gentleman has asked, what is meant by responsibility? I will answer -him. There will be responsibility in point of reputation, at least a -responsibility to the public opinion with respect to his abilities; and -supposing there is no personal responsibility, yet we know that men of -talents and ability take as much care for the preservation of their -reputation as any other species of property of which they are possessed. -If a superior degree of wisdom is expected to be displayed by them, they -take pains to give proofs that they possess it in the most unequivocal -manner; this of itself will ensure us no small degree of exertion. - -With respect to originating money bills, the House has the sole right to -do it; but if the power of reporting plans can be construed to imply the -power of originating revenue bills, the constitution is inconsistent -with itself, in giving the President authority to recommend such -measures as he may think expedient or necessary; but the construction is -too unnatural to require further investigation. - -I have admitted there is a small probability of a small inconvenience, -but I do not think it any more an argument against the clause, than it -would be an argument against having windows in a house, that it is -possible the wind and the rain may get in through the crevices. - -Mr. STONE was not afraid of giving the officer the power of reporting -plans, because he was sure Congress would, in every case, decide upon -their own judgment. A future Congress would not pay such a deference, -even to their predecessors, as to follow in their footsteps, unless they -were convinced of the good policy of their measures. He thought if the -House wanted to make use of the information acquired by the Secretary, -they ought to give him notice of their intention; consequently, -something of this kind was proper in the bill. - -Mr. SHERMAN thought the principle held up by the clause, was absolutely -necessary to be received. It was of such a nature as to force itself -upon them; therefore it was in vain to attempt to elude it by -subterfuge. It was owing to the great abilities of a financier, that -France had been able to make the exertions we were witnesses of a few -years ago, without embarrassing the nation. This able man, after -considerably improving the national revenue, was displaced; but such was -the importance of the officer, that he has been restored again. - -Mr. _Baldwin_.--I do not see what we are guarding against by striking -out the words, unless gentlemen mean to go so far as to introduce a -prohibitory clause, and declare that the Secretary of the Treasury shall -be restrained from digesting or preparing plans for the improvement of -the revenue. If there is any evil in having him attend to this branch of -the business, I cannot see how to avoid it. Suppose the officer is a bad -man, and there are others like him in this House, (for this must be what -the gentlemen are afraid of;) and suppose he has prepared a scheme for -peculation, which he hopes to get adopted by making dupes of the honest -part; how are you to hinder it from being brought forward? Cannot his -friends introduce it as their own, by making and seconding a motion for -that purpose? Will you restrain him from having access to the members -out of doors? And cannot he infuse his dangerous and specious arguments -and information into them as well in the closet, as by a public and -official communication? But, Mr. Chairman, can this House, or if it can, -will it prevent any of their constituents from bringing before them -plans for the relief of grievances or oppressions? Every individual of -the community can bring business before us by petition, memorial, or -remonstrance, provided it be done in a decent manner. How then do you -propose to restrain the Secretary of the Treasury? - -I think the clause is very well as it stands, and shall therefore be -against the amendment. - -Mr. PAGE'S motion for striking out the clause being put and negatived: - -The question on Mr. FITZSIMON'S motion to amend the bill, by striking -out the word report, and inserting prepare, was taken and carried by a -great majority. - -After which the House adjourned. - - -FRIDAY, June 26. - -A number of the members attending the interesting conference which -to-day took place with the Senate on the impost and tonnage bills, no -business was done in this House. - - -_Saturday_, June 27. - -_Revenue Bill._ - -Mr. _Boudinot_, from the managers on the part of this House in the -conference with the Senate on the subject of the amendments to the -Impost Bill, reported that the conference had agreed to pass the bill as -amended by the Senate, with some additional amendments, viz: the duty on -distilled spirits of Jamaica proof, to be reduced from fifteen cents to -ten cents per gallon. The duty on all other spirits, to be reduced from -twelve to eight cents per gallon. The duty on beer, ale, porter, or -cider, imported in casks, from eight to five cents per gallon. The duty -on beer imported in bottles, from twenty-five to twenty cents per -gallon. The duty on coal, from three to two cents per bushel. - - -MONDAY, July 13. - -_Western Lands._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of -the Union. Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair. - -Mr. SCOTT requested that the report of the committee on the Western -Territory might be read, which was read accordingly, as follows: - - _Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that - an act of Congress should pass for establishing a Land - Office, and to regulate the terms of granting vacant and - unappropriated lands in the Western Territory. - -Mr. SCOTT.--In endeavoring, sir, to open the interesting subject now -before you, I shall avoid the repetition of those ideas which I threw -out on a former occasion, as far as my memory will serve me, and the -nature of the subject will permit. - -This subject, sir, will appear of great magnitude in point of interest, -if we consider the extent of the territory; I think I shall not be far -beyond the mark, if I say it is one thousand miles long by five hundred -broad; nor if I say it is sufficient to contain two millions of farms; -nevertheless, for greater caution, say it will contain one million, -(which is notoriously and greatly within the real contents,) and that -each of these farms may be peopled by six souls, they will amount to six -millions of inhabitants, double the number of the present inhabitants of -the United States. From this view, it is an object of great concern. It -will appear also an object of concern, if we contemplate the climate, -the soil, and the waters of that country; consider that it lies in the -heart of the temperate zone; its soil infinitely more rich and more -fertile than any in the Atlantic States; its waters pure and good--in a -word, it is such a territory as must command inhabitants, and will be -peopled. Its situation in the middle of our continent, gives the climate -a salubrity that accommodates it to the emigrants from both Northern and -Southern States. It is meeting them on a middle ground, softening the -harsh restrictions of the rugged North, and breathing bland the zephyr -grateful to the sun-scorched South. In short, it is such as gives to all -who have seen it the utmost satisfaction--it is both healthy and -agreeable. - -It may perhaps be objected, that the measure now proposed will lead or -tend to a depopulation of the Atlantic States, and therefore ought not -to be adopted. This is a circumstance I by no means wish. I am as far -from desiring a depopulation of the Atlantic shores, as I am from -fearing it on this ground. I am confident it will not operate in any -considerable degree to bring about that event; but if it should be -thought it would, that could be no solid objection against the measure. -Whilst the desire of emigration continues, and lands are to be procured, -settlers will find their way into that territory; nor is it in the power -of Congress to withhold lands altogether, because they are to be got of -others on better terms. There is superior encouragement held out to the -people settling on the other side of the river Mississippi, where the -soil is fertile, and the climate equally agreeable. In proof of this -assertion, I will read to the committee the translation of a kind of -proclamation issued by the Governor of the Spanish posts at the -Illinois. [This paper contains an invitation to all persons inclined to -settle in the Western country, offering as inducements, lands without -charge, exemptions from taxes, protection in civil and religious -liberties, besides provision and the implements of husbandry.] After -this, Mr. S. proceeded: Now, sir, if Congress fear to sell their lands -lest it tend to depopulate the Atlantic States, what must they apprehend -from propositions like these? They will certainly have all the effect -which encouragement from this quarter can have. It may be said, that -Americans will not venture to live under the Spanish Government, or -settle a Spanish colony. To this it may be replied, that when people, -from their necessities or inclinations, are determined to emigrate, in -order to mitigate their distresses, they think little of the form of -government; all they care for is relief from their present or -approaching wants and troubles. - -Nobody will emigrate from the Atlantic States but a certain description -of men, and they will go whether you hold out this encouragement to them -or not; they will pay little regard to Congressional restrictions. And -here let me make one remark, drawn from my own observation. The forming -settlements in a wilderness upon the frontiers, between the savages and -the least populated of the civilized parts of the United States, -requires men of enterprising, violent, nay, discontented and turbulent -spirits. Such always are our first settlers in the ruthless and savage -wild; they serve as pioneers to clear the way for the more laborious and -careful farmer. These characters are already in that country by -thousands, and their number is daily increasing, and will continue to -increase; for congenial spirits will assimilate maugre all our endeavors -to the contrary. But how will you prevent them? I should be glad to see -a plan for hemming in the emigration to that territory; I think the -thing wholly impracticable, therefore it becomes the immediate interest -of Congress, to direct the emigration to a proper point; direct it to -their own territory, rather than be inactive spectators of its silent, -though rapid course to the Spanish and British dependencies; rather sell -your lands and get something for them, than let your citizens leave your -dominions. By improving a part, you add to the value of the remainder; -their population will produce a hardy race of husbandmen and warriors, -always at the command of the United States, to support and defend your -liberty and property. These being facts, I leave it to the wisdom of the -House to draw the inference. - -I will make one further remark, with respect to the encouragement or -discouragement of emigration. Suppose it was in the power of Congress to -stop the course of the impetuous current, which has already won its way -through insuperable obstructions, and spread itself over the fertile -lands of the Ohio. I ask, with perfect security, if it is not such an -act of contumacy, and inconsistency with the fundamental principles of -the Government, that Congress could not adopt it? Consider that many of -your citizens are destitute of the comforts, nay, the common necessaries -of life, without a prospect of providing for the subsistence of -themselves and families: I ask, would Congress prevent the emigration of -such persons if they could? I think not; they would not act as kind -protecting fathers to their people if they did. I presume this would be -too serious an objection for any man to face, with a restraining -proposition. I question if any man would be hardy enough to point out a -class of citizens by name, that ought to be the servants of the -community; yet, unless that is done, to what class of the people could -you direct such a law? But if you passed such an act, it would be -tantamount to saying that there is some class which must remain here, -and by law must be obliged to serve the others, for such wages as they -please to give. - -This being the case, let us make the best of liberty, our people, and -our land. Your citizens, I tell you, are already there by thousands; -they are going by thousands more, and are every hour growing up into -consequence. They never expect to return into the Atlantic States; plant -them in your soil, add this wealth of population to your own, and form -an empire illustrious as it is extended. Remember, ye sages of my -country, an historic truth recorded for your instruction, that empire -has been slowly, but invariably, moving from East to West; emigration -has uniformly receded in that direction, from the time that our common -parents quitted the garden of Eden, till the present hour; nor doubt but -it will continue to pursue that course, as long as there are lands to be -inhabited. - -Much will depend upon the energy and force of the Government established -in that country; it ought to be such as will furnish sufficient power -for its own internal purposes, and also to secure it to the Union. But -that is not the only tie by which its union is held. That country is -attached to the Atlantic States by its natural situation. To be -convinced of this truth, nothing more is necessary than to look upon -the chart: all the commerce of that country must come through the States -upon the sea-coast. We know, at Pittsburg, that we are a thousand miles -nearer to the market than settlers at the mouth of the Ohio river. When -we export our produce by that and the Mississippi, we know we can get -easier home with our returns by the way of Philadelphia, than the others -can by turning up and stemming the current of the Mississippi. -Therefore, the imports for all that territory must come through the -United States. From these considerations, I conclude it would be madness -in the extreme for them to think of a separation, unless they were -driven to it by a fatal necessity; they will be too sensible of its ill -effects ever to attempt it. - -But suppose, for a moment, that they break off from the Union, and even -become our enemies, it would be good policy in us to get as much as we -can from them first, especially as they are disposed to give it us; let -us make them extinguish part of our national debt before they leave us. -The soil and climate of that country, as I said before, will be great -inducements for emigrants to settle there. If they were to break off, -they would know how to get money enough from the sale of the territory -to support their Government, without any other resource whatever. If I, -as a resident in that country, had the remotest view of a separation -from the Atlantic States, I should be sorry to see Congress sell an acre -of that land; for selling it, in that case, would be neither more nor -less than preventing us from putting the money into our pockets when we -became independent. If they meditate independency, the most likely way -to make them so, will be to let their lands alone, in order to supply -them with funds sufficient to support them in the measure. If they are -sold, it will not be in their power. - -I apprehend it will be found that a Land Office will effect these -objects better than any other plan that can be devised. If this should -be effectual, and no doubt can be entertained but it will, the -inhabitants of the United States cannot, with a good grace, be called -upon for heavy taxes in order to pay the interest on a debt which can be -so easily and properly extinguished. Every individual who contemplates -the subject, will see how much it is his interest to buy a few dollars -in certificates, and purchase a piece of land with them, which will -annihilate the debt, and prevent the demand for taxes to pay the -interest; besides, it will remain as a security to reimburse the -principal to the proprietor, as the population of the country extends; -but, at all events, it would be but advancing four or five years' -interest, and the whole debt would be absorbed. - -If we mean to sell our lands for ready money, or mean to trust, we have -a superior advantage. It is more probable that the necessitous person -who wants the land for the subsistence of himself and family, will labor -harder to procure a property of this kind, and secure it for himself, -than the speculator who never means to pay a farthing until he has -received it from the sale of the land; besides, the necessitous person -is better able to buy of Government than of the speculator, because he -can get it cheaper. The purchasers of large tracts retail out their land -to this class of men, and certainly charge them something for their -trouble. But if we sell on credit, as under the Proprietary Government -was the practice in Pennsylvania, those who take out small quantities -get their land surveyed, and set themselves down; they cultivate the -ground, and erect buildings for their own accommodation. Land, in this -improved state, furnishes a better security to Government for any -arrearage of purchase money, than a large tract sold on speculation, and -which lies in the same state of nature as it did when it was disposed -of, perhaps adding thereto the expense of making the survey. If the land -must revert to Congress at last for default of payment, we get nothing -in the latter case; whereas, when sold in lots, if a man has settled -himself down, and paid for his warrant and survey, which costs the Union -nothing, but for the first price and interest thereon, it must strike -every gentleman's mind that it would be disagreeable, after a man had -made a settlement for three or four years, to have to turn out. Rather -than do this, he would make every exertion to discharge the price: if -his situation was so wretched as not to furnish the means, some of his -neighbors, on such security, might befriend him; but at any rate -Government would be secure. By this argument, I do not mean to insist -that Congress should sell their lands on trust; they may do so, or sell -for ready pay, as their wisdom may think eligible. I shall be satisfied -either way. - -I think the convenience of the people is a subject not unworthy of being -taken into view. My plan proposes that they should be able to perfect -their titles on the spot. I fear not the objection which has been -raised. It may be said, the titles ought not to be completed until it -was done immediately under the eye of Congress. Let this be as it may, I -will make one remark: can we not have every tie, every check, and -security upon these officers that we have upon the collectors of the -revenue? I think there is as much room for confidence in the one case as -in the other. We can take care that the Secretary of the Land Office -shall send in his accounts of patents and warrants. I think we may -depend here upon a true return. - -The Receiver of the office shall take nothing but public securities, -which are not quite so great a temptation to embezzlement or illicit -practices as money. The Surveyor will be a check upon both. I think the -gentlemen employed in this business cannot be of very trifling -character. In short, this department may be as well checked and balanced -as any other; the expense of it will be nothing, because the officer may -be supported out of the fees. This being the case, I shall conclude with -moving that the committee adopt the resolution reported by the -committee, and recommend it to the House to appoint a select committee -to bring in a bill accordingly. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS asked if it would not be better to settle all the -principles of the bill first, that the select committee might not lose -their labor, as had been once or twice experienced, for want of this -precaution. - -He was in favor of some measure of this kind, though he had some doubts -of the necessity there was supposed to be of establishing a Land Office. - -The question was now taken on the resolution, and agreed to. - - -_Compensation of the President, &c._ - -Mr. VINING wished to call the attention of the House to a business he -apprehended not very lengthy; it was the report of a committee on the -subject of compensation to be made to the President, Vice President, the -members of the Senate and House of Representatives, for their services; -he wished gentlemen to consider the situation of every one concerned in -this business, themselves, and the continent at large. He hoped they -would consent to take it up, and he flattered himself the discussion -would not last longer than a day. - -Mr. WHITE wished to go into a Committee of the Whole on the business. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS did not like to enter upon a lengthy discussion of a -point that was incapable of much elucidation by reasoning; he therefore -was against going into a committee at this stage of the business. He -observed, that the committee had reported something, and the members had -been pretty generally consulted on the same. He hoped the House would -despatch the business without delay or loss of time, if they were at all -inclined to take it up. - -Mr. WHITE thought it necessary to go into a committee, because there -were a number of things mentioned, the reasons for which appeared to him -very uncertain. - -Mr. VINING said it was a subject of considerable delicacy, and he -supposed very few gentlemen would be inclined to speak three or four -times on a point; yet this was all the advantage gained by going into a -committee. He was no more interested than others; every gentleman might -judge of his own case, but after it had been before a committee of -twelve, in order to get the fullest sense of the House upon the subject, -he was inclined to receive it without so much circumlocution. He -observed, that the business had originated in a Committee of the Whole, -and it was unusual to recommit it without showing some reasons why. - -Mr. WHITE gave up his motion for a Committee of the Whole, and said, -before he consented to the report, he should be glad to know in what -style it was expected that the President would live. He observed there -was provision for the expenses of a house, furniture, secretaries, -clerks, carriages and horses. Perhaps the sum proposed might be too much -or too little. He should like to see an estimate of how much was -necessary for keeping the table, the equipage, &c. before he decided. He -hoped the committee would elucidate this subject. - -There was another thing he wished to inquire of them. The Vice -President's salary was charged at five thousand dollars; he could not -conceive upon what principle that sum was reported. Did it bear a -proportion to his services, or was it in proportion to what the members -of the Senate and this House were to be allowed? There is nothing which -obliges him to be attentive to his business. No doubt but the gentleman -who holds that office at present will be regardful and diligent in -executing the business assigned him; yet there is nothing to prevent the -Vice President from residing at home and receiving his salary, without -coming within the walls of the Senate room. The Union is obliged to -support him; but I, said he, would make that support conditional; he -should have a liberal provision while in public life, but no longer. As -to delicacy, I know of none, sir, that ought to be used while we are in -pursuit of the public good. I speak therefore with candor what are my -sentiments on this subject. Other gentlemen, no doubt, do the same; but -I am clearly for examining into the principles before I agree to the -conclusion. - -Mr. PAGE was sorry to see gentlemen spinning out the time to little -purpose; certainly, after having the subject under consideration for -nearly three months, they might be able to decide. - -If this business was fixed, and gentlemen knew they were to have but -moderate salaries, it might perhaps tend to make them more expeditious; -but at all events, they ought to know the rate at which they attend, in -order to regulate their expenses. To some it might be a matter of no -concern, because they could bear every thing of this kind for a -twelvemonth, without inconvenience; but they ought to consider the -situation of others. We are, said he, keeping the President here without -any provision for his support; but in this we may think ourselves right, -because, in his patriotic ardor, his love for his country, he told us he -was willing to pursue that illustrious example which he set during the -period of our calamity; he refused compensation for his services. But -the constitution requires that he shall receive a compensation, and it -is our duty to provide it. We must also provide something for our own -expenses, or it may reduce gentlemen not better prepared than I am to -depend upon a friend for what the public ought to furnish. - -Mr. VINING had said the subject was delicate, but he did not conceive -there was any indelicacy in asking or answering questions on this or any -other occasion, where the good of his country was concerned. - -Mr. LAWRENCE did not know, whether the sum proposed was enough for the -President or not; but according to the terms of the constitution, it -ought to be granted as one sum, because he is to receive no other -emolument whatever from the United States, or either of them. Now, if it -is declared he shall receive twenty thousand dollars, and, exclusive of -that sum, we make him an allowance for furniture, horses, carriages, -&c., such an allowance is an emolument beyond the compensation -contemplated in the constitution; but I have no objection to blend these -sums together, declaring the whole to be the compensation required by -the constitution. Besides, if we establish salaries for his secretaries -and clerks, we establish them officers of the Government; this will be -improper, because it infringes his right to employ a confidential person -in the management of those concerns, for which the constitution has made -him responsible. For these reasons, Mr. L. moved to strike out all that -related to horses, carriages, furniture, &c. - -Mr. SHERMAN thought it much better to give a net sum, because the -President would then have no accounts to settle with the United States. - -Mr. SEDGWICK considered this a constitutional question, and therefore -thought it deserved serious investigation. The provision made in the -report, for paying the expenses of enumerated articles, does not leave -the President in the situation intended by the constitution, which was, -that he should be independent of the Legislature, during his continuance -in office; that he should have a compensation for his services, not to -be increased or diminished during that period; but there is nothing that -will prevent us from making further allowances, provided that the twenty -thousand dollars is all that is given as a compensation. By this -construction, one of the most salutary clauses in the constitution will -be rendered nugatory. From these considerations, he was led to believe -that the report was founded on unconstitutional principles. - -Mr. BALDWIN said, the Committee of the Whole, when the business was -before them, had not determined any thing on this point; that, -consequently, the select committee were to frame a report upon such -principles as they judged proper. In order then to have every thing -distinct and accurate, they had brought their opinion forward in the -form it now appears. If it be deemed proper to grant an aggregate sum, -the House would no doubt add to the twenty thousand dollars, what it was -supposed these expenses would amount to. - -However, he did not think the constitution was infringed; it was -intended that the compensation should not be increased or diminished, -during the President's continuance in office. Now it might be as well -fixed, by making the allowance in part money, and part furniture, &c. as -by declaring a precise sum; it will still be a stated compensation. - -Mr. TUCKER thought furniture and plate ought always to be provided by -government, because, if it was necessary for every new President to buy -these articles, it might put him to great inconvenience, unless he -received a year's salary in advance; besides, when he retired from his -situation, they would not sell for half the first cost. He therefore -wished this part of the report to stand, together with the rent of a -house; but would join in striking out all the rest. - -Mr. MADISON did not think the report interfered with either the spirit -or letter of the constitution, and therefore was opposed to any -alteration, especially with respect to the property of a fixed nature. -He was sure, if the furniture and plate, and house rent, could be -allowed, some of the other articles might also. The horses and carriages -will cost money, and sell for little, after being used for four years; -this will be a certain loss to the President, or his family; besides the -House have already undertaken to defray expenses of this kind, and so -set a precedent for the enumeration which had been reported. - -Mr. WHITE said, if a certain sum was assigned for the expenses, the -report would be better; but as it now stood, there was no certainty in -it. One President might circumscribe it to a quarter part of the expense -another would; consequently, the compensation could not be fixed. - -He admitted the propriety of paying the salary in advance for the first -year, as mentioned by the gentleman from South Carolina. He expected -this would be sufficient to defray the extra expenses, without -subjecting the President to any inconvenience. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--If the Legislature may provide the house and furniture, -they may go further on the same principle, and provide for the rest; he -was satisfied it should be so, because it could be no infringement on -the constitution. - -Mr. LIVERMORE hoped the words would be struck out; indeed he was sorry -they had ever been put in. The clause in the constitution is intended to -tie down the Legislature, as well as the President; they shall make him -no compliments while in office, he shall receive nothing but a fixed -compensation for his services. Give him then this compensation, let it -be equal to his usefulness; but do not direct him to employ so much to -one use, and so much to another; it cannot be called a compensation when -you direct how it is to be expended; besides, it was wrong on another -account; why should we pretend to direct him in the style in which he -shall live? Let him have a salary, and expend it in the manner he shall -think proper. - -Mr. PAGE was for striking out all the words, because he conceived it -would be against the spirit of the constitution. It would be much more -handsome to make one general provision, than to be thus particular in -enumerating the articles of expense. It has been hinted, that these -articles of expense would amount to half the sum mentioned in the report -to be given as a compensation; if so, he would propose to strike out all -that related to the subject, and so insert twenty-five or thirty -thousand, as the House shall deem most eligible. - -Mr. STONE thought the President ought to be at liberty to live in any -style he thought proper, and that the House ought to give him such -compensation as they thought his services merited. If you furnish him -with a house, horses, and carriages, you declare that this is the house, -the horses, and the carriages which he shall use. There is certainly -some degree of indelicacy in this; if he was a private gentleman, he -would be at liberty to use such as he liked best. Suppose he dislikes -them, and will not have them, he is guilty of a breach of the law, is it -intended by the House to impeach him for it? I apprehend it is not, for -no part of the constitution gives us a right to dictate to him on this -head. He would rather let the President set the example how he ought to -live, than see the Legislature direct him. Economy is by no means -disadvantageous to the United States; if the President chooses to live -in an economical manner, we ought not to prevent him. - -Mr. VINING thought, as the President was the representative of the -nation, that there ought to be a proper degree of dignity attached to -the office; he did not wish for splendor, but hoped to avoid the -appearance of penury. If he was right in this opinion, the House had a -right to show what they expected of the President, and, consequently, -had a right to enter into the enumeration proposed in the report, and -establish a uniform rule of conduct in the presidential chair. - -With respect to its constitutionality, his mind was perfectly easy, the -constitution appeared to be silent; if so, the House had the right of -interfering. He wondered how gentlemen could agree to provide plate and -furniture, yet hesitate with respect to the clerks and secretary. Were -not the latter as necessary as the former? If so, they ought to be -equally provided for. - -The question on Mr. LAWRENCE'S motion was now taken, and decided in the -affirmative. - -Mr. PAGE now moved to strike out twenty thousand dollars, and insert -thirty thousand. - -Mr. SMITH inquired whether it was the intention of the House to saddle -the President with the expense incurred, in consequence of their -resolution of the 15th April. He understood that near ten thousand -dollars had been laid out in purchasing furniture, and putting the house -in order for his reception; it might be disagreeable to the President to -take it. Perhaps he would be a considerable loser by such a bargain, and -many of the things might be of a nature he disliked. He thought the -House had been inconsistent with itself in ordering these things for the -President, and then refusing to let them be applied to his use. - -Mr. SHERMAN thought the House need not be embarrassed on this point. The -expense is to be paid by the United States, and the furniture will be -their property, to do what they please with. Neither did he think the -House inconsistent, because it was the object of the Legislature, by -their former vote, to provide only for the temporary accommodation of -the President. - -Mr. BENSON said, the business had been properly conducted. It was not in -contemplation to throw the furniture or any other expense upon the -President. He presumed the property belonged to the United States, but -they would sell to the President such part as he chose to purchase. As -to the house, the President was not confined to it; he might give it up -when he pleased, and take another if he thought proper. - -The question on striking out twenty thousand and inserting thirty -thousand was divided, and the first part was agreed to, but the latter -rejected. - -It was now moved to strike out the words secretary and clerks. - -Mr. MADISON thought the Executive Magistrate ought not to have the power -of creating officers; yet if he appointed his secretary and clerks, and -they were recognized, either with respect to salary or official acts, -they became officers of the Government. - -Mr. BENSON did not think it necessary to recognize any such officers; -they were to be esteemed the mere instruments of the President, and not -as sharing in the administration. - -The motion was put, and carried in the affirmative, and then the House -adjourned. - - -THURSDAY, July 16. - -_Compensation of the President, &c._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the Report of the Committee on -the Compensation to the President, Vice President, and Members of -Congress. - -The blank occasioned by striking out on Monday last, was now proposed to -be filled. - -Mr. LIVERMORE moved to fill it with 18,000 dollars. - -Mr. BURKE said, there were some members of the committee in favor of -15,000 dollars; others indeed were for a much larger sum--he believed -they went so far as 70,000 dollars; that 20,000 dollars was an -accommodation, and as such he had agreed to it; but he was of opinion -that 15,000 dollars was sufficient; that 20,000 had been once agreed to, -but the expenses were added at a subsequent meeting of the committee; -now, as the House had concurred in striking out 20,000 dollars, and a -proposition was come forward more correspondent to his judgment, he -should give it support. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS presumed it was not a question before the House what the -report of the committee had been, nor were the sentiments any gentleman -had there delivered to operate against the sense expressed by the -committee in their report; if any thing done in committee was to -influence the decision of the House, it must be the report, which spoke -the sense of the majority. He further presumed, that when the 20,000 -dollars were struck out, after all the expense had been erased, it was -in the contemplation of the honorable mover to increase the sum so as to -include both articles. It was with this view he voted in favor of -striking out the 20,000 dollars. - -Mr. TUCKER said it might happen, that the expenses a President would -incur at the first entering on the office would be so great as to injure -his private fortune and distress his family. A quarter's salary might be -insufficient to defray the expense; yet if the President continued but -three months in office, this sum would be all he was entitled to. He -thought it just and requisite to provide against accidents of this kind, -if it could be done consistently with the constitution. With this object -in view, he would propose that the President's compensation should be -26,000 dollars for the first year, and 16,000 dollars for every other -year; that 10,000 dollars should be paid him in advance, on his coming -to the chair, and the remainder in quarterly payments. Its amount, he -said, would be nearly what was proposed by the gentleman from New -Hampshire (Mr. LIVERMORE); and if the House was disposed to fix on that -sum, as a proper compensation, they might, without any material change, -admit his proposition; but if they meant to grant either a greater or a -less sum, he hoped they would accommodate it to his principle. - -Mr. STONE said, that a sum of 25,000 dollars would be as small a sum as -would answer the purpose; and provided that amount should be agreed to, -the expense of the Executive would be less to the people than that of -any Government in the world. If it is considered that the unavoidable -expense will be great, and that the assistance of two or more -secretaries will be necessary for the President to discharge his high -and important trust, and that it cannot be expected that persons in such -a station should be in straitened or dependent circumstances, this sum -will not be found to exceed the absolute expense, with a moderate -compensation for the services of the President. It is also a maxim of -sound policy, that executive officers should be independent. - -Mr. WHITE.--Sir, I do not say that 25,000 dollars will or will not be -sufficient; but in order to determine the necessary sum, I should wish -to know the style in which the President is expected to live. If a style -of magnificence and splendor is to be adopted, the sum is too small; and -if economy is pursued, it may be too much. Until this is known, it will -be extremely difficult to decide upon a proper sum; and when I give my -vote, I wish to give it on such information as will satisfy my mind with -respect to its propriety, and show my constituents the reasonableness of -the measure. Will he live in a more expensive style than the former -Presidents of Congress, or will he live nearly in the same? If so, what -was that expense, or what will be the probable increase? How was that -money applied, and what will now be necessary? If these questions can -be answered, gentlemen may decide with more precision than they can -while the subject is left afloat. - -Mr. BALDWIN said, it was impossible to get the information the gentleman -required, the committee had made all the examination in their power with -respect to the actual expense of supporting the office. They found -former Presidents of Congress, whose office, by the by, was less -important, and whose assistants were less numerous, expended 7,000, -8,000, and so on to 13,000 dollars annually. From this, some gentlemen -were led to believe 17,000 dollars might be sufficient in this instance. -But we were, said he, left without any thing satisfactory on this -subject, and when the question was pressed on the committee, they varied -from 15,000 to 25,000 dollars; we were therefore obliged to average the -sum. - -We were satisfied that it must be left to experiment to determine what -the allowance ought to be; and we were certain that the gentleman who -had to make the first experiment would do it in such a manner as to give -satisfaction to every body. He knows the way to blend dignity and -economy; and I would rather, on this account, make the allowance too -much than too little. I would, therefore, prefer making the experiment -at 25,000 dollars; a sum that, in the President's hands, will give -umbrage to no one. - -Mr. BOUDINOT made some further observations respecting the examination -made by the committee, from which it appeared that the expenses of the -President of the United States would exceed the expenses of the late -President of Congress in a variety of cases. Two secretaries would be -wanting; they must be men of abilities and information; but the -committee conceived extra provision would be made for them by the House. -If the whole was to be comprehended in one grant to the President, he -would rather increase the sum reported by the committee than diminish -it. Originally he was in favor of allowing 16,000; but then he thought -the expense of secretaries, carriages, furniture, &c., was to be an -additional allowance. Since the House had determined otherwise, he -favored an addition to the 20,000 dollars. - -Mr. JACKSON was disposed to move 30,000 dollars; but he was willing to -accommodate, and agree to 25,000 dollars. - -Mr. VINING observed, that the committee had no documents whereby they -could form a judgment; they had no light to guide them. They could not -foresee what ambassadors and foreign ministers might be sent to this -country, nor the expenses the President must necessarily incur upon that -account, to support the honor and dignity of the United States. He -further remarked, that there are cases in which generosity is the best -economy, and no loss is ever sustained by a decent support of the -Magistrate. A certain appearance of parade and external dignity is -necessary to be supported. Did I, said he, represent a larger State, I -would speak with more confidence on the subject. We are haunted by the -ghost of poverty; we are stunned with the clamor of complaint throughout -the States. But under the auspices of an energetic Government, our funds -will be established and augmented, and, I make no doubt, will be found -sufficient to answer all the purposes of the Union. But our calculations -ought not to be confined to the present moment alone. If it should be -contended by any gentleman, that we have it not in our power to support -the Government in a proper style, then there is an end of the business. -We should remember that the present time is the season for organizing -the Government. A patient and mature deliberation is requisite to -investigate it, and by that means the amount of the civil list will be -increased; in future, the sessions will be short, and the load of -expense greatly diminished. He was opposed to any reduction of the sum, -as he had always thought it too small, and would rather propose to fill -the blank with 30,000 dollars. - -Mr. PAGE mentioned that 30,000 dollars had been proposed; though he -thought the sum adequate, it was not sufficient to support pomp and -parade. Those, he said, were entirely out of the question. He had made a -calculation upon the probable necessary expenses, and found, that -exclusive of that dignity and pageantry talked of, this sum would -suffice. If he had contemplated the splendor and pageantry alluded to, -he should not have thought of 30,000 dollars, nor 40,000 dollars, for he -believed 100,000 dollars insufficient. But if the committee, upon -investigation, were convinced that 20,000 dollars would be a -compensation for his services, exclusive of an allowance for his -expenses, when the whole was taken together it must at least amount to -30,000 dollars; for this reason he moved to fill the blank with that -sum. - -The question on 30,000 dollars was put, and rejected. - -Mr. PAGE then moved 25,000 dollars, which was carried; affirmative 30, -negative 17. - -The House then proceeded to the second part of the report, viz: "That -there be paid in like quarterly payments to the Vice President of the -United States, 5,000 dollars per annum." - -Mr. WHITE.--I do not like the principle on which this provision is made -for the Vice President; there is nothing, I believe, in the constitution -which gives him a right to an annual sum; it fixes no duty upon him as -Vice President, requiring a constant attendance. He may be called upon -to act as President, and then I would give him the salary of the -President; at other times, he is to preside as President of the Senate, -then I would pay him for his services in that character. On this -principle, I shall move to strike out the clause; if that is agreed to, -I propose to offer one, allowing him the pay of President, when he acts -as President; and a daily pay during the time he acts as President of -the Senate. - -Mr. PAGE would second the motion for striking out five thousand dollars, -but with a different view from what had been intended by his worthy -colleague. He wished it struck out, in order to introduce a larger sum. -His idea was, that a proper proportion was not observed between the -salary of the First and Second Magistrates. As to the utility of the -office, he had nothing to say. He had no hand in forming the -constitution; if he had, perhaps he should never have thought of such an -officer; but as we have got him, we must maintain him; and those -gentlemen who talk of respectability being attached to high offices, -must admit, in a comparative view, that he is not supported with -dignity, provided a situation derives its dignity from the money given -him by way of salary; for his part, he thought money, abstractedly -considered, could not bestow dignity. Real dignity of character proceeds -from a much nobler source; but he apprehended the people of the United -States, whose representative the Vice President was, would be displeased -to see so great a distinction made between the President and him. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, the arguments of the honorable gentleman from -Virginia (Mr. WHITE) did not strike him with any force, nor did he see -the impropriety spoken of. One reason why the pay of the members of the -Senate and House is per diem is, because they contemplate their being -together but a very inconsiderable part of their time; but I suppose, -said he, that every gentleman who has considered the subject, has -determined in his own mind that the Vice President ought to remain -constantly at the seat of Government; he must always be ready to take -the reins of Government when they shall fall out of the hands of the -President; hence it will be necessary that he should, for this cause, if -not for any other, preclude himself from every object of employment, and -devote his whole time to prepare himself for the great and important -charge for which he is a candidate. Under these circumstances, it is -necessary that he should be provided with a constant salary, to support -that rank which we contemplate for him to bear; I therefore conceive it -must be such a perpetual salary as the President is entitled to receive. -If the principles of the motion are inadmissible, it cannot be supported -by argument, because very little information can be obtained on which to -ground our reasoning. - -Mr. SENEY said, that, according to the constitution, a compensation is -to be made for services performed. The Vice President may absent himself -the whole time. He proposed giving him a handsome allowance while -employed, but thought he ought to be paid per diem. - -Mr. SHERMAN adverted to the circumstance of salaries being allowed to -Lieutenant Governors in the several States where such officers are -appointed; so that, according to this mode, the grant made to the Vice -President would correspond with the practice of the States -individually. It appeared also, he said, to be necessary, inasmuch as -this officer would be taken from all other business. - -Mr. WHITE.--If I thought, sir, the attendance of the Vice President as -necessary as that of the President, I would not hesitate to allow him an -annual salary; but I do not conceive it to be so necessary; it is not -made so by the constitution. If he had been appointed Vice President as -a perpetual counsel for the President, it would have altered the case; -he would then have had services to render, for which we ought to -compensate him. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. -SEDGWICK) has intimated that he will be precluded from following any -other business; there is nothing in the constitution which precludes him -from following what profession he thinks proper. I am willing to pay him -a full and liberal allowance for all the services he renders; but I do -not think we are authorized to institute sinecures for any man. - -It ought to be considered that the Vice President has personal -advantages from the appointment to that office; it holds him up as the -successor of the President; the voice of the people is shown to be -considerably in his favor; and if he be a deserving person, there will -be but little doubt of his succeeding to the presidential chair; not -that I would make this an argument to diminish his compensation. I would -pay him amply for all the services he renders, at least as amply as the -Government and circumstances of the people will admit. When performing -the duties of President, he should receive the salary as such. - -The constitution has stipulated, that the President shall be compensated -for his services, that we shall ascertain it by law; but it has not said -one syllable with respect to the pay of the Vice President; hence I -consider it would be improper to pay him on any other principle than in -proportion to his services. If these require five thousand dollars a -year, it may be made to amount to that sum, at so much per diem. - -As to the observations of the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. SHERMAN,) -that Lieutenant Governors receive salaries in the several States, and -therefore it will be proper to grant one to the Vice President, in order -to comport with the practice of the States individually, I shall only -remark, that in some States they have no such officer; in others, where -they have such an officer, they give him no pay at all; in some, they -are paid according to their attendance on business, in the manner that I -propose to pay the Vice President. But admitting that every State had an -officer of this kind, and that they paid him a salary like that proposed -in the report, it would be no argument why the General Government should -pursue a practice inconsistent with that economy and sense of propriety -which it ought to be the study of the Representatives of the people of -the United States to preserve to their constituents. - -Mr. MADISON.--I do not concur, Mr. Speaker, in sentiment, with my -colleague on this subject. I conceive, sir, if the constitution is -silent on this point, that it is left to the Legislature to decide -according to its nature and its merits. The nature of the office will -require that the Vice President shall always be in readiness to render -that service which contingencies may require; but I do not apprehend it -to be in our power to derive much advantage from any guides furnished by -the examples of the several States; because we shall find them -differently provided for by the different Governments. If we consider -that the Vice President may be taken from the extremity of the -continent, and be from the nature of his office obliged to reside at or -within the convenient reach of the seat of Government, to take upon him -the exercise of the President's functions, in case of any accident that -may deprive the Union of the services of their first officer, we must -see, I think, it will often happen that he will be obliged to be -constantly at the seat of Government. No officer under a State -Government can be so far removed as to make it inconvenient to be called -upon when his services are required; so that, if he serve without a -salary, it may be he can reside at home, and pursue his domestic -business; therefore the application in that case does not appear to me -to be conclusive. - -My colleague says that he will derive advantages from being in the line -of appointment to the presidential chair. If he is to be considered as -the apparent successor of the President, to qualify himself the better -for that office, he must withdraw from his other avocations, and direct -his attention to the obtaining a perfect knowledge of his intended -business. - -The idea that a man ought to be paid only in proportion to his services, -holds good in some cases, but not in others. It holds good in -legislative business, but not in the executive or judicial departments. -A judge will be sometimes unemployed, as in the case of the Vice -President; yet it is found necessary to claim the whole of his time and -attention to the duties for which he is appointed. If the principle of -proportioning the allowance to the quantum of services performed -obtains, it will be found that the Judiciary will be as dependent on the -legislative authority, as if the Legislature was to declare what shall -be their salary for the succeeding year; because, by abridging their -services at every session, we could reduce them to such a degree, as to -require a very trifling compensation indeed. Neither do I, Mr. Speaker, -consider this as a sinecure; but that will appear from the reasons -already given. The office of a judge is liable, in some degree, to the -same objection; but these kinds of objections are levelled against the -institutions themselves. We are to consider his appointment as a part of -the constitution; and if we mean to carry the constitution into full -effect, we ought to make provision for his support, adequate to the -merits and nature of the office. - -Mr. AMES said that the Vice President's acceptance of his appointment -was a renunciation of every other avocation. When a man is taken from -the mass of the people for a particular office, he is entitled to a -compensation from the public; during the time in which he is not -particularly employed, he is supposed to be engaged in political -researches for the benefit of his country. - -Every man is eligible, by the constitution, to be chosen to this office; -but if a competent support is not allowed, the choice will be confined -to opulent characters. This is an aristocratic idea, and contravenes the -spirit of the constitution. - -Mr. SENEY.--This, sir, is a subject of a delicate nature, and the -discussion of it rather disagreeable; but I think it my duty to declare -my sentiments freely upon it. No argument has been adduced to convince -me that the Vice President ought to receive an allowance any more than -the other members of the Legislature. He cannot be compelled to perform -any duty. This is an important subject, and ought to be maturely -considered, as a great deal depends on the decision which will now take -place. - -Mr. BURKE observed that the situation of our finances was so much -embarrassed, as to dis-empower us from giving such ample salaries as we -might, under different circumstances, think necessary; that it was but -reasonable the Vice President should receive a compensation adequate to -the second officer in the Government. He will be subject to extra -expenses by living at the seat of Government, and will be obliged to -maintain his dignity. Mr. B. further suggested that the sum might not be -fully sufficient, but in our present situation, it was as much as we -could afford. - -Mr. AMES, in his reply to Mr. SENEY'S observations, pointed out the -difference of the situation of the Vice President and the members of the -Legislature. - -Mr. SEDGWICK made some additional remarks of a similar nature, and -further observed, it would be necessary that the members of the House -should return and associate with their constituents, in order to learn -their sentiments and their feelings, and witness their situation and -wants, that they may consequently resume their former occupations: but -with respect to the Vice President, his acceptance must be considered as -an abandonment of every other pursuit; he must reside at the seat of -Government, and will necessarily incur extra expenses in consequence of -his office. - -Mr. STONE.--I am for giving such salaries to the officers of this -Government, as will render them easy in their situation. But we are -confined by the constitution; salaries are to be given for services -performed; they are considered in no other light. The Vice President -cannot be viewed in any other light than that of the President of the -Senate. I am for his being paid per diem, but would allow him a -generous support. I do not think five thousand dollars are sufficient; I -would allow him a larger sum, which allowance, per diem, would amount to -what would be fully adequate. - -Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said, that by the constitution the Vice -President could not be considered as a Senator, and therefore could not, -with any propriety, be paid as such. Considering him as an officer in -the Government, next in dignity to the President, and particularly -designated by the constitution, he must support a correspondent dignity -in his style of living, and consequently ought to have a competent -allowance for that purpose. He did not think five thousand dollars would -be considered too much, and would vote for that sum. The idea of a daily -allowance must be given up, as inapplicable to the situation assigned -him by the constitution. He is there recognized as Vice President, and -as such ought to be provided for. A daily pay of twenty-five or thirty -dollars would appear a large compensation; yet if Congress sat but one -hundred days, which, in all probability, would be the length of their -future sessions, it would be insufficient for his support. But suppose -it one hundred and fifty days; this, at thirty dollars per day, would -come so near the proposed salary, that the saving would be an -inconsiderable trifle; but if the session was longer, it might amount to -more than is contemplated by any gentleman. - -Mr. PAGE was clearly for making the allowance by annual salary, because -the office was permanent; a daily allowance could not be relied upon, -because if the Senate sat but a few days, it would be incompetent, even -at one hundred dollars per day; whereas, if the session was of long -continuance, that sum would be more than the services could require, if -they are to hold a comparison with those of the President. If the House -agreed to strike out the five thousand dollars he would propose eight -thousand, which was not one third of what was given to the President. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--The question seems to turn merely on this point, whether -the Vice President shall receive a per diem allowance, or an annual -salary? The constitution ought to serve as the ground on which to -determine it; therefore we are to consider the point of view in which -this office is placed by that instrument. The second article calls him -into view with the President; he is to be elected in the same manner as -the President, in order to obtain the second best character in the Union -to fill the place of the first, in case it should be vacated by any -unforeseen accident. The constitution considers him a respectable -officer; he is to supersede the President, when it shall happen that the -First Magistrate dies or is removed on impeachment and conviction. These -are the great objects of his appointment. His duty as President of the -Senate is only collateral; consequently he ought to be respected, and -provided for according to the dignity and importance of his principal -character. If still inferior duties were attached to him, would it be an -argument for reducing the compensation to an equality with what ought to -be granted, if he performed such inferior duties only? I apprehend it is -a principle of this nature which urges gentlemen on to press the -amendment. I cannot see any reason for differing with the constitution -on a point in which I think it ought to guide our decision. - -I think there is an affinity between the duration of the office and the -compensation. The constitution establishes the office for four years; -the compensation ought to be made commensurate with that idea. - -The question on Mr. WHITE'S motion was taken and lost, as was Mr. PAGE'S -motion for striking out 5,000 and inserting 8,000 dollars. - -The proposition being then agreed to, - -The House proceeded to consider the following: That the daily pay of the -members of the Senate, and House of Representatives, for their -attendance at the time appointed for the meeting of their respective -Houses, and for the time they shall be going to, and returning -therefrom, allowing the travel of twenty miles for each day, be six -dollars, and of the Speaker of the House of Representatives twelve -dollars. - -Mr. SEDGWICK moved to amend this proposition, so as to give to the -members of the Senate six dollars per day, and five to the members of -the House of Representatives. His reason for introducing this -distinction was, that the convention had made it in the constitution. -The Senators are required to be of an advanced age, and are elected for -six years. Now this term taken out of the life of a man, passed the -middle stage, may be fairly deemed equal to a whole life; for it was to -be expected, that few, if any, of the Senators could return to their -former occupations when the period for retirement arrived; indeed after -six years spent in other pursuits, it may be questioned whether a man -would be qualified to return with any prospect of success. - -He did not say six dollars was more than a compensation for their -services and expenses; but as economy ought to be particularly studied -by the Legislature, he had moved to reduce it. He hoped gentlemen would -pay some deference to the public opinion, on the present occasion; this -he thought to be in favor of small salaries. Not but a different -sentiment might prevail in some of the States; perhaps different -circumstances might warrant the difference of opinion. It was probable -that five dollars laid out in that part of the Union from which he came, -would be more advantageous to the person, than a like sum laid out at -the other extremity of the continent; but he believed, nevertheless, -that something would be left to those gentlemen out of the five dollars -per day, after their expenses were paid; but even if a little -self-denial was the consequence of this reduction, it would do but -little harm; whereas the precedent might have a salutary influence upon -the future administration of the Government. - -Mr. JACKSON.--I am opposed to this discrimination, because all have -alike abandoned their particular pursuits in life, and all have equally -engaged in the service of their common country. On what principle can -this distinction then be contended for? Is it expected that a Senator -shall eat more, or drink more costly liquors, than a member of the House -of Representatives? I presume it is not; their expenses must be nearly -equal. I can see but one reason that can be assigned for this -difference, which is, that the Senate may sit longer than the House; but -considering they are to receive pay accordingly, this reason is of no -weight. The duties of both Houses are equal, and the pay ought to be -alike. - -I will submit to the gentleman who brought this motion forward, whether -it is not much worse to the personal interest of men in business to be -taken off in the prime of life, than after the successful pursuit of -some profession at an advanced age, when the natural and proper time of -retirement arrives; and if so, his argument falls to the ground. But if -the reverse is true, it will not support his motion, because, if we look -around, our senses will inform us that this House contains as venerable -and aged members as any within the walls of the Senate; thus again we -are upon a footing. Now, unless gentlemen mean that we should depress -ourselves, and thereby set the Senate above us, I cannot conceive what -foundation there will be for a discrimination. - -Mr. LEE.--I am in favor of the motion for discriminating between the -Senate and this House, because the constitution has done it in a variety -of modes. The qualifications are superior; a Senator must be a man -advanced in life, and have been nine years a citizen of the United -States; while a younger man who has been but seven years a citizen, may -obtain a seat in this House. - -The constitution has made a difference in the mode of election. The -Senators are selected with peculiar care; they are the purified choice -of the people, and the best men are likely to be preferred by such a -choice; those who have shown the fullest proofs of their attachment to -the public interest, and evinced to their countrymen their superior -abilities. In order to bring forth such characters to partake of our -public councils, I think every motive of honor and of interest ought to -be called into action. If men are not brought forth who will maintain -their own dignity, and promote the public interest by a firm and -independent conduct, regardless of every risk, regardless of the voice -of calumny or popular clamor, our Government will soon lose its -importance and its energy. I contemplate, Mr. Speaker, the Senate as a -barrier between the Executive and this branch of the Legislature, -shielding the people from any apprehension of being attacked by an -aspiring Magistracy on the one hand, and on the other from being -desolated by the anarchy often generated by a time-servingness to -veering popularity. We shall gain these desirable objects at a trifling -price, if we make a distinction of two or three dollars per day--a -trifling allowance indeed to our most worthy sages. But, said the -gentleman last up, there are as young men in the Senate as in this -House; although there be, the time will come when none but the most -venerable and respectable of our citizens, men whose hoary heads are -silvered over with the honors of an experienced old age, men illustrious -by their virtues and capacity, will have the public confidence ensured -to them by the purity and notoriety of their principles. - -Now is the time to deliberate and view every future circumstance which -may arise from our decision; the importance of this principle hereafter, -is infinitely above every advantage which the present members may derive -from it. By it alone you may secure dignity and permanency to the -Government, and happiness under its administration. - -It is with difficulty, Mr. Speaker, that you can draw forth men of age -and much experience to participate in the political concerns of their -country. Retirement and reflection are incident to that period of life; -they are sought for, and, when obtained, they are highly prized. The -wise and virtuous sage, who from the monitions of nature has discovered -that his remaining years will be but few, must be incited by every -motive that can operate on the human heart to continue those labors -which he seeks to bury the remembrance of in the deeps of solitude. -Honor may stimulate the ingenuous mind; but interest is a great reason -of action, and may be usefully employed to influence old age. - -What I have now urged is in favor of the constitutional distinction; I -approve of the amendment, but I wish the sum had been left out, that the -provision might be determined according to the sense of the House, and -not affect the principal question of discrimination. I am satisfied, -sir, that there is no heart within these walls but beats with patriotic -ardor, and has determined to pursue the noblest object, the public good. -Nothing but the anxiety I feel for this, as connected with the present -question, could have induced me to trouble the House with a repetition -of what was dilated upon, on a former occasion. Let it then be -considered, that on our decision depend the dignity of the Legislature, -and the perpetuity of that Government, the glory and the hopes of the -people of America, which, if now disappointed, must be succeeded by -confusion and gloomy despair. - -Mr. WHITE.--I object, sir, to a discrimination. I cannot perceive that -difference in the constitution alluded to by the gentlemen. Among the -Senators and the people in some of the ancient commonwealths, an -artificial and political distinction was established, which was the case -at Rome, in particular. There the Senators were considered as possessing -some degree of divinity, and the rest of the people were not admitted to -associate with them. Can it be supposed that the name of Senators will -render those members superior to their fellow-citizens? I cannot see any -difference in the general estimation between a Senator and a -Representative, however great their sentiments may vary in their -respective States; and cannot conceive why any discrimination should be -made in their allowances. - -The independence of the members of this House may be injured by such a -distinction; and the Senate, at some future day, may have it in their -power to carry points, and be enabled to prolong the session, when it -may be of great inconvenience to the House. - -Mr. MADISON was of opinion that a discrimination was necessary; he -observed, that it had been evidently contemplated by the constitution, -to distinguish in favor of the Senate, that men of abilities and firm -principles, whom the love and custom of a retired life might render -averse to the fatigues of a public one, may be induced to devote the -experience of years, and the acquisitions of study, to the service of -their country. And unless something of this kind is adopted, it may be -difficult to obtain proper characters to fill the Senate, as men of -enterprise and genius will naturally prefer a seat in the House, -considering it to be a more conspicuous situation. - -Mr. MOORE did not see the propriety of the discrimination proposed; the -business of each House is equal, or if there is a difference in their -legislative concerns, it is in favor of the House. He had no idea of -giving the public money for such an idle purpose as the support of a -fanciful dignity and superiority. His idea of the business was, each -member ought to be compensated for his services, and nothing further. - -Mr. VINING.--The arguments brought forward by my honorable friend from -Virginia, (Mr. LEE,) have not proved satisfactory to my mind, that his -favorite opinion with respect to discrimination is right. He has told us -that the sages of America will be selected, and placed in this -distinguished situation. True, sir, I expect venerable and respectable -characters will find their way into every branch of the Government; but -when I consider the mode in which the Senate is elected, I apprehend we -may have there men whose wealth has created them the influence necessary -to get in. If any thing is to be expected by this refined choice, it is -that men of rank and opulence will draw the regard of the small and -select circle of a State Legislature; while the Representatives in this -House, being the choice of their fellow-citizens, among whom rank and -dignity are rather unpopular, will consist of men in middling -circumstances. Now if any thing is to be drawn from arguments like -these, it is in favor of this House. But the whole of this is a subject -on which we are better able to decide from our feelings, than from our -discussions. - -I am against the motion for another reason, sir; it goes to reduce the -compensation, which I think is already set too low, to furnish good -security for the happy administration of the Government. In considering -this subject, there are two important objects necessary to engage the -attention of the Legislature. First, that the compensation be not made -an object for indigence to pursue; and second, that it be not so low as -to throw the business of legislation into the hands of rich and aspiring -nabobs, but such as to compensate a man in the middle grade of life. -These are generally men of business, who are fittest to conduct the -concerns of their fellow-citizens. Now, in compensating this class of -men, (for I would have the compensation proportioned to this class,) I -do not take into consideration the sacrifices they make, by dedicating -their time and abilities to the service of their country; but I confine -myself merely to a compensation for their time and services. If the -compensation is made an object for indigence, we shall have the sessions -protracted to an extreme length, and the expense will be increased; if -we make the reward barely commensurate with the services, you will have -men of abilities, who will despatch the public business, and return to -their private pursuits. If the business is done without pay, it may be -productive of the most enormous evils. Were every member of the British -House of Commons allowed a thousand guineas a year, they would be less -venal; we should not find them purchasing their seats, and selling their -votes, for places and pensions. The very money given in this way would -furnish a handsome compensation for every member, and add something -considerable, annually, to their sinking fund. - -I apprehend, in establishing a compensation, we shall put it in the -power of gentlemen, while here, to live as independent as they can at -home. Perhaps I hazard a conjecture, when I say there is not a gentleman -on this floor, I am certain there are not many, but have found, from -experience, that six dollars per day is adequate to that object; -certainly it cannot be the wish of any man to make the public service -unpleasant, by rendering the situation of the members of Congress less -eligible than a solitary retirement from patriotic pursuits would be. -Any man who lives decently, will find six dollars a day not more than -sufficient to defray the expense of a casual residence in a splendid -city. - -The experiment has been made. If a gentleman keeps a servant and his -horses, and means to reciprocate the civilities he receives, I again -assert the compensation is inadequate. It is true, we may live for two -dollars a day; but how? There is a dignity attached to the situation of -a Representative, with respect to his country; and the compensation -might be seven or eight dollars per day, without granting the members -more than a bare compensation. From all these considerations, I am -induced to hope that gentlemen will indulge a little, and rather support -an increase, than a diminution of pay. - -As to the discrimination, it has been once decided against by a -considerable majority; I have no doubt but it will now meet a similar -fate; but be the decision of the House what it may, with respect to the -quantum, or manner of compensation, I shall never fear to deliver my -sentiments. On the present occasion, I wish them known to my -constituents, and I am much mistaken if they are not coincident with -their own. - -Mr. SENEY.--I am sorry, sir, that the question of discrimination has -been brought before the House. Can any reason be assigned for making -this distinction? Are the services of the Senate of more importance than -those of the Representatives? I think not. Gentlemen have brought -forward the constitution upon this occasion, but I conceive it to be -opposite to the very principle they mean to advocate. This will destroy -the independence of the several branches, which is to be strictly -observed. If a discrimination should be established in favor of the -Senate, will it not naturally tend to create a sense of inferiority in -the minds of the Representatives? And the time may come when they may -find it their interest to become subservient to the views of the Senate. -I feel so sensibly, sir, the impropriety and unconstitutionality of this -measure, that had I the most distant idea it would comport with the -sentiments of a majority of the members of this House, I should call for -the yeas and nays on a division of the House upon the question. But as I -do not conceive that to be the case, I shall waive the proposition for -the present. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, that whenever he had a motion to make before the -House, he endeavored to satisfy himself of the reasonableness and -propriety of it. If he thought it proper, he did not consider the mode -of decision that might be adopted of any material consequence; but in -determining the present question, he hoped the yeas and nays would not -be called. There is a principle in mankind which revolts at the idea of -inferiority; a proposition, for example, shall be made, that has for its -object the establishment of a superiority (howsoever necessary;) that -principle is alarmed and excited to opposition; to discuss such a -question as the present, we ought to be divested of every partiality and -prejudice, that might bias our judgment in deciding an affair that will -not bear the test of reason and experience. I conceive the precedence of -the Senate has been clearly pointed out by the Constitution. There are -grades in society which are necessary to their very existence. This is a -self-evident proposition; it is recognized by every civilized nation, -and by the House in the report before us. For what reason have we made a -difference between the President and Vice President? Is it not on -account of his superior station and his dignity? And between the Vice -President and the Senate? This distinction is likewise established by -the constitution in the difference of the terms for which the members of -the Senate and those of the House of Representatives are chosen. The -time for which the Senate is chosen, demonstrates the propriety of a -difference being made in the pay they ought to receive; the duties of -their office require they should renounce every other avocation; their -attention will be wholly taken up in the discharge of public business; -therefore they should have an adequate and an independent allowance. The -generality of the members being so far advanced in years, will drop -every idea of engaging any more in their several professions, after -having once engaged in the service of their country. Their age, wisdom, -and experience, all warrant this discrimination. He concluded by saying, -that the real dignity of the House was, he thought, so far from being -diminished by adopting the proposition, that he conceived it was -essentially connected with it. - -Mr. STONE thought the House ought not to assist in elevating one branch -of the Government more above the other than the constitution had done. -This had given influence to the Senate by a negative in the cases of -treaties and appointments. It had given importance to the House, by -vesting them with the sole power of originating money bills. But both -these powers could be exercised without a discrimination being made in -the pay of the members; therefore he inferred that it was not -contemplated by the constitution to make any such distinction. - -A discrimination may eventually operate to the public injury; the House -of Representatives may be desirous of terminating the session, but the -Senate, finding the compensation they receive quite agreeable, may be -inclined to protract it. He thought the true way of deciding on this -subject, was to make the same allowance to both, and let it be such as -not to induce them to protract the session on the one hand, or have a -tendency to hurry over the business on the other. - -Mr. JACKSON said, in reply to the inquiry of Mr. SEDGWICK--"Why have we -made a difference between the President and the Vice President?" that -the whole of the President's time would be taken up in the duties of his -station; that the Vice President might retire to his farm whenever he -thought proper. We refer, said he, to the wisdom of the Senate; but how -is this superior wisdom to be discerned? If on this account a -distinction is to be made, it necessarily follows that a difference -should be made between the members of this House, and those of the -Senate. We cannot be too cautious how we establish an undue -pre-eminence, and give an influence and importance to one branch of the -Legislature over the other. All governments incline to despotism, as -naturally as rivers run into the sea. Despotism makes its way gradually, -by slow and imperceptible steps; despotic power is never established all -at once; we shall, ere we are aware, get beyond the gulf, and then we -shall be astonished how we reached there. The services of the Senate are -not more arduous than ours; their proper business is legislation, and I -will never consent to any discrimination. If I imagined the question -would be determined in favor of discrimination, I would call the yeas -and nays, and should it be determined in favor of it, I will still call -them on purpose that my constituents may see that I have voted against a -measure which I look upon as injurious to the Government. - -Mr. PAGE.--If he thought the discrimination proposed would have the -tendency which some gentlemen apprehended, he would be the last man on -the floor to support it. He would be as careful as any man how he -extended the influence of any part of the Government, or gave it the -least inclination towards aristocracy. But he apprehended gentlemen were -deceived in their principle--he did not believe the doctrine that money -confers importance, and he wished to evince to the world, that money, -under this Government would have no such effect. The Senate having more -duties to perform, may require a larger pecuniary gratification; but -this will not add to their importance. It will require something of this -kind to stimulate gentlemen to undertake the service; for his part, he -might consent to come here for two years, in order to assist in public -business, but no inducement, hardly, could engage him to undertake it -for six years. On this consideration, he thought the Senate ought to -have annual salaries, and to such an amount as would render their -situation independent and eligible. - -If gentlemen are afraid of an aristocracy, they ought to be careful not -to make the compensation too low, so as to exclude men of middling -fortunes; the men of rank and distinguished opulence might serve without -any pecuniary compensation; but the Government would not be safe, if it -was exclusively in such hands. He wished to discriminate in favor of the -Senate, but he would rather increase their pay to eight dollars, than -reduce that of the members of this House, while he considered it but a -moderate compensation. - -The question on Mr. SEDGWICK'S motion was taken, and lost by a -considerable majority. - -The House having now gone through the report, it was _Ordered_, that a -bill or bills be brought in, pursuant thereto, and that Messrs. BURKE, -STONE, and MOORE, be a committee to prepare and bring in the same: with -instructions to insert a clause or clauses, making provision for a -reasonable compensation to the Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the -House of Representatives, respectively, for their services. - -After which the House adjourned. - - -WEDNESDAY, July 22. - -_Western Lands._ - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the state of the Union, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair; and, after some time -spent therein, the committee rose and reported that they had had the -state of the Union under consideration, and come to a resolution -thereupon, which was read and then delivered in at the clerk's table, -where the same was twice read, and agreed to by the House, as follows: - - _Resolved_, That an act of Congress ought to pass for - establishing a Land Office, and for regulating the terms - and manner of granting vacant and unappropriated lands, the - property of the United States; that the said office be - under the superintendence of the Governor of the Western - Territory; that the land to be disposed of be confined to - the following limits, viz: - - That the tracts or parcels to be disposed of to any one - person, shall not exceed ---- acres; that the price to be - required for the same shall be ---- per acre; and that - every person actually settled within the said limits shall - be entitled to the pre-emption of a quantity not exceeding - ---- acres, including his settlement. - -_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said -resolution, and that Mr. SCOTT, Mr. SYLVESTER, and Mr. MOORE, do prepare -and bring in the same. - - -THURSDAY, July 23. - -_Home Department._ - -On motion of Mr. VINING, the House resolved itself into a Committee of -the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair. - -Mr. VINING introduced a resolution for the adoption of the committee, by -which it is declared: That an Executive department ought to be -established, and to be denominated the Home Department; the head of -which to be called the Secretary of the United States for the Home -Department; whose duty it shall be to correspond with the several -States, and to see to the execution of the laws of the Union; to keep -the great seal, and affix the same to all public papers when necessary; -to keep the lesser seal, and to affix it to commissions, &c.; to make -out commissions, and enregister the same; to keep authentic copies of -all public acts, &c., and transmit the same to the several States; to -procure the acts of the several States, and report on the same when -contrary to the laws of the United States; to take into his custody the -archives of the late Congress; to report to the President plans for the -protection and improvement of manufactures, agriculture, and commerce; -to obtain a geographical account of the several States, their rivers, -towns, roads, &c.; to report what post-roads shall be established; to -receive and record the census; to receive reports respecting the Western -Territory; to receive the models and specimens presented by inventors -and authors; to enter all books for which patents are granted; to issue -patents, &c.; and, in general, to do and attend to all such matters and -things as he may be directed to do by the President. - -Mr. BENSON objected to some of the duties mentioned in the resolution. -He thought the less the Government corresponded with particular States -the better, and there could be no necessity for an officer to see to -the execution of the laws of the United States, when there was a -Judiciary instituted with adequate powers. - -Mr. WHITE was not convinced that there was a necessity for establishing -a separate department for all or any of the duties contained in the -resolution. The correspondence with the States belonged to the -Executive. To see to the execution of the laws was the duty of the -Judiciary. The great seal might be kept by the Secretary of Foreign -Affairs; the lesser seal might be deposited in the same hands. -Commissions might be made out by the departments to which the officer is -connected. The Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House might -transmit the public acts, and keep records thereof. What have Congress -to do with the acts of States? If they interfere with the constitutional -powers of the Government, the Judges will prevent their operation. The -papers of the late Congress may be distributed among the officers to -which they relate; the rest may be deposited with the officers of -Congress. The want of the reports on manufactures, agriculture, and -commerce, may be supplied by Congress. The post-roads may be left to the -Postmaster General. The census must be returned to Congress, and they -will preserve it among their files. And it can hardly be thought -necessary to establish a great department for the purpose of receiving -the models, specimens, and books presented by authors and inventors. If -none of these things are requisite to be done by a great department, why -should the United States incur the expense which such an arrangement -must necessarily draw along with it. - -Mr. HUNTINGTON thought the Secretary of Foreign Affairs was not so much -overcharged with business but that he might attend to the major part of -the duties mentioned in the resolution. - -Mr. VINING said, he had waited until the great Executive departments -were established; but none of those had embraced the duties contained in -his proposition, which he conceived to be of great importance; many of -the duties were as essential as those of any other department, except -the Treasury. As for their belonging to the Executive, as was said by -the gentleman from Virginia, he admitted it; but they were, -nevertheless, as proper to be put into the hands of a principal officer -under the President, as the War office, or office of Foreign Affairs; -the duties of these were especially within the Executive department of -the Government. He conceived that the President ought to be relieved -from the inferior duties of his station, by officers assigned to attend -to them under his inspection; he could then, with a mind free and -unembarrassed with the minutiæ of business, attend to the operations of -the whole machine. - -If the office was admitted to be necessary, and he was certain the -performance of the duties were useful and essential, the expense could -be no solid objection, because the information it would furnish would -more than counterbalance that article. - -The question he conceived to be reduced to this, whether a confidential -officer would not be more useful than any other, and whether the duties -could be distributed among the officers already instituted. For his -part, he conceived most of them foreign to either of those officers; and -that they could not be performed with advantage any other way than by an -officer appointed specially for the purpose. He thought every gentleman -would admit that the duties were important, and he assured them that his -only reason for bringing the motion forward was, to provide for the -public good. He had no personal motives in pressing it; he disclaimed -every idea of serving any particular man by the arrangement, and rested -it solely upon its merits. - -Mr. SEDGWICK believed the honorable gentleman in his assertions, that he -had no personal motive in pressing this business. He believed that he -thought it essential, and if his sentiments were the same, he would join -the gentleman in supporting the motion; but after duly considering the -subject, he was inclined to believe that the office was unnecessary, and -that it would be squandering the public money, at a time when the -greatest economy is requisite. He thought the principal part of the -duties might be assigned to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; and he -would, if the committee negatived the present motion, introduce another -for that purpose. - -Mr. GERRY thought the burthens of the people would be sufficiently great -in providing the supplies absolutely necessary for the support of the -Government; therefore it would be improper to add expenses which might -possibly be avoided. The people are viewing the proceedings of Congress -with an attentive solicitude, and if they observe that we erect offices -for which there is no apparent necessity, they will be apt to think we -are providing sinecures for men whom we favor; they will reluctantly pay -what is extracted from their earnings to a Government which they think -is regardless of economy. They will suspect a further view in the change -of Government. They will suppose that we contemplate the establishment -of a monarchy, by raising round the Executive a phalanx of such men as -must be inclined to favor those of whom they hold their places. - -Mr. VINING.--Why do gentlemen say that such an office is unnecessary, -when they are forced to admit that all the duties are essential? Or how -can they say it is more expensive to establish it in this way than in -another? Suppose these duties distributed in the manner which some -gentlemen have mentioned, is it not fairly to be presumed that the -departments to which any of them are attached, will require an extra pay -for these extra services? If so, will there be any economy in this mode -of procedure? All that is to be wished for, is to have a confidential -person employed, let his salary be what you please: if it is not worth -fifteen hundred dollars per annum, let it be five hundred. But it would -be better to have a principal to manage the business than to have it -consigned to clerks in the other departments. - -Mr. LAWRENCE said that something was necessary to be done with respect -to the business brought forward by the honorable gentleman from -Delaware. He conceived that an officer of the rolls, or some inferior -officer, ought to be appointed to transact the business detailed in the -resolution; he did not insist upon making a great department. - -Mr. SEDGWICK agreed with the gentleman from New York; but, he thought, -the business might be thrown into some other department, and save to the -Union the expense of the one which the gentleman from Delaware wished to -establish, by the name of the Home Department. He thought the resolution -proposed altogether so improper, that he hoped the committee would rise. - -A desultory conversation arose, whether the committee should decide upon -the resolution or not; after which a question was taken on the rising of -the committee, and decided in the negative. - -Then the question was put on the first part of Mr. VINING'S proposition, -viz: "That an Executive Department ought to be established, to be -denominated the Home Department;" and lost by a considerable majority. - - -FRIDAY, July 24. - -_Committee of Ways and Means._ - -Mr. FITZSIMONS.--The finances of America have frequently been mentioned -in this House as being very inadequate to the demands. I have ever been -of a different opinion, and do believe that the funds of this country, -if properly drawn into operation, will be equal to every claim. The -estimate of supplies necessary for the current year appears very great -from a report on your table, and which report has found its way into the -public newspapers. I said on a former occasion, and I repeat it now, -notwithstanding what is set forth in the estimate, that a revenue of -three millions of dollars in specie, will enable us to provide every -supply necessary to support the Government, and pay the interest and -instalments on the foreign and domestic debt. If we wish to have more -particular information on these points, we ought to appoint a Committee -of Ways and Means, to whom, among other things, the estimate of supplies -may be referred, and this ought to be done speedily, if we mean to do it -this session. - -Mr. GERRY said, the estimate reported by a committee was as accurate as -possible. From this it appeared, that eight millions of dollars would be -necessary for the support of Government, for the interest and -instalments becoming due, and for the arrearages already due. He -remarked, that we had been already dunned on this subject by foreigners, -and that Congress would have to make provision for their payment. If -three millions of dollars were employed to this use, it would only be -carrying the arrearages into another year; but, as they must be paid at -last, he recommended making an immediate exertion as a better way of -giving satisfaction than procrastination would be. He thought it best to -lay the real situation of this country before the House, and not -endeavor to make things appear better than they really are. - -With respect to the publication of the estimate in the papers, he knew -nothing about it; he admitted that it was such a one as ought not to be -published by order of Congress. He approved of the idea of appointing a -Committee of Ways and Means, if it were only to ascertain what part of -the interest on the debt should be paid, and what of the principal -extinguished within the current year, from the funds already provided. - - -FRIDAY, July 31. - -Mr. SCOTT, from the committee appointed for the purpose, brought in a -bill for establishing a Land Office for the Western Territory, which was -read and laid on the table. - -On motion, - - _Resolved_, That a standing committee be appointed to - examine the enrolled bills, and to present the same to the - President for his approbation and signature. - -Messrs. WHITE and PARTRIDGE were accordingly appointed. - -Mr. WHITE, of the committee appointed to examine into the measures taken -by Congress and the State of Virginia, respecting the lands reserved for -the use of the officers and soldiers of said State, &c., brought in a -report, which was read and laid on the table. - -The House then resumed the consideration of the amendments agreed upon -in Committee of the Whole, to the bill for registering and clearing -vessels; which being finished, the bill was ordered to be engrossed for -a third reading on Monday next. - -A message from the Senate informed the House that they had passed the -bill for establishing the Treasury Department, with amendments; to which -they desired the concurrence of the House. - -Mr. SEDGWICK, from the committee appointed for the purpose, brought in a -bill to provide for the safe keeping of the acts, records, and great -seal of the United States, for the publication, preservation, and -authentication of the acts of Congress, &c.; which was read and laid on -the table. - - -MONDAY, August 3. - -A message from the Senate informed the House that they had passed the -bill for the establishment of light-houses, beacons, and buoys, with -several amendments; to which they desired the concurrence of this House. - -The amendments of the Senate were immediately considered and agreed to. - -The engrossed bill for regulating the coasting trade was read a third -time; and, on motion, recommitted to a Committee of the Whole, to be -taken up to-morrow. - -The bill for establishing a Land Office for the Western Territory was -read a second time, and made the order of the day for Thursday. - -The bill to provide for the safe keeping of the acts, records, great -seal, &c., was read, and made the order of the day for Friday. - -The report of the committee on amendments to the constitution was, on -motion of Mr. MADISON, made the order of the day for Wednesday sennight. - -Mr. BENSON made a motion as follows: - - _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to join with a - committee of the Senate to be appointed for the purpose, to - consider of and report when it will be convenient and - proper that an adjournment of the present session of - Congress should take place; and to consider and report such - business now before Congress, necessary to be finished - before the adjournment, and such as may be conveniently - postponed to the next session; and also to consider and - report such matters not now before Congress, but which it - will be necessary should be considered and determined by - Congress before an adjournment. - - -TUESDAY, August 4. - -_Compensation of Members._ - -Mr. BURKE, from the committee appointed for the purpose, brought in a -bill for allowing a compensation to the members of both Houses, and to -their respective officers; this bill provides that the compensation -shall be as follows, viz: - -To each member of the Senate and House, six dollars per day. - -The Speaker of the House, twelve dollars per day. - -To the Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the House, each fifteen -hundred dollars a year, and two dollars a day each during the session of -the Legislature; one principal clerk to each, at three dollars a day -during the session; one engrossing clerk to each, at two dollars a day -during the session. - -Serjeant-at-arms, three dollars a day during the session. - -Doorkeeper to the House and Senate, each seven hundred and thirty -dollars a year. - -Assistant doorkeepers, during the session, one dollar and fifty cents a -day each. This bill was laid on the table. - - -WEDNESDAY, August 5. - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the -bill for allowing compensation to the members of the Senate and House of -Representatives of the United States, and to the officers of both -Houses, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair. - -Mr. GOODHUE moved to strike out six dollars, as the pay of each member -per diem. - -Mr. CARROLL inquired, if it was not out of order for the committee to -alter principles, after they had been settled by the House. - -Mr. PAGE wanted to know whether the gentleman meant to increase or -diminish the sum, for he presumed it was not intended to be left a blank -altogether; but he hoped the House would do neither. It had been -settled, after mature deliberation, at six dollars; the House certainly -thought that sum enough, and if it was more, that it would be too much; -he was satisfied with this determination, and would adhere to it. -Perhaps the gentleman meant to strike out the six dollars, in order to -make a discrimination between the members of this House and the Senate; -if so, he had better move to increase the compensation of the Senators, -and here he would second him, because he thought their services required -more. - -He would once more mention his fears relative to a small sum. He dreaded -the abuse of economy, and was suspicious that a parsimonious provision -would throw the Government into the hands of bad men, by which the -people might lose every thing they now held dear. He thought few would -serve for a smaller sum than he would, and he was confident the -allowance was as moderate as any man could expect. Gentlemen who come a -great distance are put to considerable expense, and their domestic -arrangements destroyed: instead of laying up money by their attendance -here, it was almost certain they would spend part of their private -estates. - -If it is meant that the republic should be provided with good and -wholesome laws, a proper provision should be made to bring into the -councils of the Union such men as are qualified to secure them well; it -is not to be expected that the spirit of patriotism will lead a man into -the perpetual habit of making such exertions and sacrifices as are too -often necessary in the hour of danger. No man ought to be called into -the services of his country, and receive less than will defray the -expenses he incurs by performing his duty. If he does, the public -affairs, in the time of tranquillity, will get exclusively into the -hands of nabobs and aspiring men, who will lay the foundation of -aristocracy, and reduce their equals to the capacity of menial servants -or slaves. - -Mr. SEDGWICK seconded the motion for striking out. He had endeavored to -view this subject impartially, uninfluenced by any local considerations -or circumstances; and under these impressions, he was led to believe, -from all the information he had received, whether from abroad, or from -an examination in his own mind, of the effects it would produce, that it -would be expedient to establish the compensation at a lower sum. He -really did not see any solid ground for the apprehensions which his -worthy friend from Virginia (Mr. PAGE) had discovered. He had heard it -often said, that if salaries and allowances to public officers were -small, you would not be able to command the services of good men; but it -was contradicted by the fact. He would instance the late appointments, -and ask gentlemen whether they conceived better men could have been -procured, if the compensation had been doubled? If it was fair to -reason by experience and analogy, he should conclude there would be no -difficulty in procuring good and respectable men, to serve in this -House, at a less rate than six dollars per day. He had never yet -observed that men of small property shrunk from the expense of serving -in the councils of their country. - -He thought the practice of the States was opposed to so high a -compensation; many of the State Legislatures allowed their members a -dollar and ten shillings a day, and yet they were served by good men. - -He had been informed that it was thought by men of sense and -intelligence, that although six dollars might not be too great an -allowance for the services of the members of this House, yet, -considering the present circumstances of the people, it would be good -policy to reduce the same. He inclined to this opinion himself. - -Impressed with these ideas, and knowing that it was generally the -opinion of the people, that six dollars was more than a moderate -compensation to the members of this House, he should support the motion -for striking out with a view to reduce the sum. - -Mr. VINING said, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. CARROLL) had taken the -subject up in a proper point of view, by inquiring into the point of -order. He begged gentlemen to consider the manner in which the subject -had been discussed already--twice in the House, and twice in committee; -every decision had been the same; why should the point so often -determined be again agitated? It is contrary to all parliamentary -proceeding, and the House will never know when principles are settled. - -He was certain that six dollars was but a moderate compensation, if a -member is to reside at the metropolis of the United States. He would -admit that they could live for less, in some more central part of the -country; but the gentlemen from the eastward should recollect that a -small allowance would be an argument for removing Congress from this -city, and when that time arrived, he should consent to a lower sum, but -not till then. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS did not expect to hear the subject discussed again; he -thought it unnecessary, because he believed every gentleman would decide -more upon his own feelings than upon the arguments that could be -adduced; he would, however, just remind the committee, that six dollars -was about the average of what the members from the several States had -under the late confederation. - -Mr. SEDGWICK.--According to the observation made by the gentleman from -Pennsylvania, it will be deemed insolent to reason on this subject: what -I offered before, I brought forward with candor; but shall we be -precluded from debate, because a subject has been once discussed? Sir, -when I moved, some days ago, to reduce the pay of the members to five -dollars, I was rather indifferent about it; but since then, I have been -so well convinced of the necessity there is for such a measure, that I -cannot decline pressing it once more upon the committee. - -Mr. STONE thought the public mind would not be much influenced by the -trifling difference between five and six dollars. They pay greater -regard to the decisions of the House, on more important subjects. The -gentleman from Massachusetts says his correspondents inform him, that -the public mind is agitated on this subject; if we are to judge what is -the state of the public mind from what our friends say, I should be apt -to think the public mind quite unconcerned on the present question; for -among all my correspondents, not one has deigned to notice it. - -The question was now taken on striking out, and there appeared sixteen -in favor of it, and thirty-five against it; so the motion passed in the -negative. - -Mr. MADISON renewed the motion for making a difference in the pay of the -members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which was also -lost. - -Mr. GOODHUE moved to strike out twelve dollars, the pay assigned the -Speaker, and insert ten. - -Mr. PAGE hoped his motion would share the fate of the two last; he was -certain that twelve dollars was not more than a compensation for the -Speaker's services; three times the sum would not induce him to accept -such a situation. - -Mr. BURKE was against the motion, because he thought that twelve dollars -was not a reward for the Speaker's labor. The Speaker of the House of -Commons in England has an annual salary of £8000 sterling. - -Mr. CARROLL thought the Chair of the House of Representatives was one of -the most important and dignified offices under the Government, and as -such ought to be provided for. - -This motion was lost by a great majority. - -The committee rose and reported progress. - - -THURSDAY, August 6. - -_Compensation of Members._ - -The House then again went into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for -allowing a compensation to the members of Congress; and after some time -spent therein, the committee rose and reported the bill as amended: then -the House proceeded to consider the same. - -Mr. THATCHER moved to insert five dollars instead of six, as the pay of -the members. - -Mr. PARTRIDGE observed, that money was more valuable now than it had -been some years past; if, therefore, six dollars was the average of what -the delegates received heretofore, five dollars was now equal to that -sum. In short, he was convinced that six dollars was too much, and in -justice to his constituents, and his own conscience, he would vote -against it, and perpetuate his vote by calling the yeas and nays upon -the question. - -Mr. GERRY.--I was not present when this subject was last before the -House, therefore I cannot say what was understood on this point; but I -have seen some account of the debate in the papers, from which I am led -to believe, that gentlemen view this matter in a very narrow point of -light. It appears to me a question, in which one's popularity is more -concerned than any thing else. Gentlemen perhaps suppose that by voting -for five instead of six dollars, they will establish such a character -for economy and patriotism as will redound to their honor; but I can -easily conceive, that men of knowledge and sentiment, yes, our -constituents in general, will discover, in a glaring light, the ruinous -consequences of such a measure in a very short period. The difference of -pay, as it now stands in the bill, and what my colleague has moved for, -is one dollar a day, and on this important question the yeas and nays -are to be called. For my part, I shall deliver my sentiments freely; I -am willing to leave the question to the people to decide; I care not -about the pay, and I can assure them I never wish to have a seat in this -House again: but I wish to guard against the subversion of the public -liberty--against the introduction of pensions--against exposing the -Legislature to corruption. - -I would have gentlemen consider the principles upon which they are to -pay the President, their Judges and themselves; the constitution says, -the members of this House and the Senate shall receive a compensation -for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the -Treasury of the United States. The President shall receive, at stated -times, a compensation for his services, neither to be increased nor -diminished; the Judges shall, at stated times, receive for their -services a compensation, not to be diminished during their continuance -in office; hence it appears that the provision for the three branches is -to be made on the same principle, namely a compensation for their -services. Now, though it is certainly a little embarrassing that we -should have to estimate the value of our own services, yet we are bound -to do it, and that upon a fixed principle. It has been said, that the -Parliament of Britain receive no pay. This may be the case, but if they -examine back, they will find that pay, of a mark per day, was regularly -established for them. If we consider the difference of the value of -money two or three centuries ago, we shall find this no inconsiderable -allowance. But the policy of the British ministry has been, of late, to -extend the influence of the Crown; the pay of members has dropped into -disuse; but every one knows by what means a majority in Parliament is -obtained and secured. Now, such is the extent of these means, that I -venture to say, two important members of the House of Commons receive -more per annum than the whole compensation given to the members of both -Houses of Congress. I leave it to the world to judge, whether the -people are likely to be better served by men who receive their wages of -the Monarch, and who own themselves the servants of the Crown, or by -those who are immediately paid by and dependent upon themselves. While -Britain had funds enough to support this plan, they did tolerably well; -but when the evil extended itself, and they feared they could no longer -continue it without having recourse to other means, they bethought -themselves of unconstitutional ones; they were desirous of obtaining a -revenue out of this country, and placing upon our establishment men whom -they could not provide for at home. This cause lost them America, and -this cause will lose them every dependency, where they attempt to play -the like game. - -From this view, the importance of an independent Legislature may be -seen. Will gentlemen then say, that to gratify a thoughtless regard for -economy, they will risk the most invaluable part of the Government? If -gentlemen say it is justice to their constituents, I am willing to -appeal to their tribunal; let them know the reason upon which we act, -and I will abide by their determination; but I am against being -influenced by an apprehension that the people will disapprove our -conduct. I am not afraid of being left out, even if it were thought a -disgrace to be left out. I would risk that disgrace rather than agree to -an establishment which I am convinced would end in the ruin of the -liberties of my fellow-citizens. It would give my heart more -satisfaction to fall the victim of popular resentment, than to establish -my popularity at the expense of their dearest interest. - -As I mentioned before, the principle upon which we fix our own pay must -go through the other branches of the Government. Your President ought to -be retrenched to 16 or 18,000 dollars; your judges must be kept poor; -and I leave gentlemen to consider the happy consequences arising from a -dependent and corrupt Judiciary. Your Legislature may be corrupt, and -your Executive aspiring; but a firm, independent Judiciary will stop the -course of devastation, at least it will shield individuals from rapine -and injustice; but remove this security, and tyranny and oppression will -rush forward as a flood, and overwhelm the country. - -It has been said, that the proposed compensation bears no proportion to -the pay of the members of the State Legislatures; let me ask, do members -of the State Legislatures forego their business? Do they leave their -State and relinquish their occupations? Does the lawyer neglect his -client? Does the merchant forego his commerce, or the farmer his -agriculture? No, sir, the short period they are in session, and the -opportunity of being in the vicinity affords them of going home, even -during their sitting, enables them to pursue their other avocations, -while performing their duties in the Legislature. But are not gentlemen -who come from the most distant parts of the Union, compelled to -relinquish every thing to attend here? The representation from the -States is so small, that a member can be ill spared at any time; his -absence must give him pain, when even that absence is necessary, but -cannot be often allowed. In short, I would have the allowance such, as -to secure the services of men of abilities in every rank of life; or if -that cannot be obtained, I would have all that part of the bill struck -out, which relates to a compensation for the services of the members of -this House. - -Mr. PAGE said, if gentlemen were satisfied that five dollars per day was -enough to compensate them and defray their expenses, because they -resided in a part of the Union where every thing was to be procured so -much cheaper, they might receive that sum and leave the residue in the -Treasury; by this means they would demonstrate their love of economy and -disinterestedness. - -Mr. VINING thought gentlemen who were satisfied with four or five -dollars, might move to amend the clause, so as to make it read "not -exceeding six dollars per day," and then they might charge as much less -as they deemed prudent. - -Mr. BOUDINOT said, that whatever measures he supported, he did it upon -principle, not from a desire of acquiring popularity; he was satisfied -that six dollars per day was not extravagant compensation, but -considering the situation of the country, and the delicacy of their own -situation, he would vote for five dollars, and he thought it sufficient -to secure men of ability. He asked the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. -GERRY) if he expected the paltry consideration of getting a dollar a day -more, was to induce men of abilities and integrity to come forward and -render their country their services? - -He admitted that many gentlemen would find it difficult to bear all -their expenses with five dollars a day; but the compensation could not -be on a principle of discrimination, and therefore the House could not -make particular provision for such gentlemen. Others might think a less -sum sufficient, but no discrimination could here take place; it was -therefore necessary to accommodate, and upon this principle he hoped the -House would agree to five dollars per day; nor would this be any -variation from the principle established by the committee who reported -the bill. They had taken the pay of the delegates to the late Congress, -and struck an average, which was found to be about five dollars and a -half; they had reported six, but from the principles he had before -mentioned, he thought it better to agree to five. - -Mr. GERRY.--The gentleman from Jersey, who was last up, says he does not -think six dollars per day more than sufficient; but that he will, from a -principle of delicacy, vote for five. I am as great a friend to delicacy -as any man, but I would not sacrifice essentials to a false delicacy. It -seems, from such sentiments, as if we were afraid to administer a -constitution which we are bound to administer. How are those sentiments -reconcilable to the oath we have taken? The constitution requires that -we shall, by law, compensate the services of the members of both Houses. - -It has been said, that money is now more valuable than it was a few -years since. I admit the fact, sir, but four dollars per day was better -under the old plan of Government than six or eight under this, because a -delegate was then engaged for the whole year, but now he is to attend at -intervals. Some members were continued several years successively, and -consequently found it more advantageous. But this mode of reasoning is -fallacious; the question ought to be determined upon its own merits. But -if gentlemen are for sacrificing justice and propriety to delicacy, or -any other motive, let them come forward and agree to what I mentioned -before; let them strike out all that relates to their own compensation; -they are called upon by their own arguments to do this. - -Mr. SEDGWICK did not rise to speak to the question, but merely to reply -to some observations that have fallen from the gentlemen who opposed the -present motion, particularly his colleague. The want of candor and -liberality might render gentlemen unpleasant in their situation; but the -consequences arising from such causes, were often still more unpleasant. -His colleague had insinuated, in a pointed manner, that the gentlemen -who were in favor of a reduction, were actuated by motives not only -improper and unworthy of a man of character, but such as appeared base -to his mind. It was said, that those who proposed this reduction, did it -merely to court popularity. Whether the gentleman, his colleague, who -brought forward the motion to-day, sacrificed more at that shrine than -his colleague who had opposed it, he left to those to determine who -noticed their conduct; but he believed they could never be charged with -such meanness. For his own part, if he had sacrificed in this way, as -his conduct had always been consistent with his sentiments, it must have -been known, and his character would long ere this have been blasted in -the manner it would have justly deserved. If he had done it heretofore, -he hoped the stigma would not be affixed upon him, for a conduct founded -upon the solid and substantial reasons he had advanced when the subject -was last before the House. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--The gentleman from Massachusetts makes me say, that six -dollars a day is not too much. I said it was not extravagant, but more -than I thought was proper upon due consideration of the circumstances of -this country. This is still my opinion, and upon it I shall ground my -vote. I believe no gentleman in this House regards his popularity, when -set in competition with his duty; my conduct has ever been open, and I -leave the world to judge from that what are my principles. I shall -therefore take no further notice of what has been said on that subject, -but conclude with wishing, for the honor of the House, and the dignity -of the gentlemen, that all our debates may be conducted with candor and -moderation. - -Mr. AMES wished the call for the yeas and nays was withdrawn; because he -thought they lost their usefulness by a too frequent use. He was in -favor of the motion, but he did not wish to have his name entered on the -minutes on that account. - -Mr. PARTRIDGE said, it was well known he never courted popularity; he -never sought a seat in this House, or any other public body; but he -insisted upon his right, as a member, to call for the yeas and nays, -when he thought the public interest might be benefited by it; however, -as the bill was not to be finished to-day, he would waive that call. - -The question was taken on Mr. GOODHUE'S motion, and passed in the -negative, by a large majority. - -The bill was ordered to be engrossed, and the House adjourned. - - -THURSDAY, August 13. - -_Amendments to the Constitution._ - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. -BOUDINOT in the chair, and took the amendments under consideration. The -first article ran thus: "In the introductory paragraph of the -constitution, before the words 'We the people,' add 'Government being -intended for the benefit of the people, and the rightful establishment -thereof being derived from their authority alone.'" - -Mr. SHERMAN.--I believe, Mr. Chairman, this is not the proper mode of -amending the constitution. We ought not to interweave our propositions -into the work itself, because it will be destructive of the whole -fabric. We might as well endeavor to mix brass, iron, and clay, as to -incorporate such heterogeneous articles; the one contradictory to the -other. Its absurdity will be discovered by comparing it with a law. -Would any legislature endeavor to introduce into a former act a -subsequent amendment, and let them stand so connected? When an -alteration is made in an act, it is done by way of supplement; the -latter act always repealing the former in every specified case of -difference. - -Besides this, sir, it is questionable whether we have the right to -propose amendments in this way. The constitution is the act of the -people, and ought to remain entire. But the amendments will be the act -of the State Governments. Again, all the authority we possess is derived -from that instrument; if we mean to destroy the whole, and establish a -new constitution, we remove the basis on which we mean to build. For -these reasons, I will move to strike out that paragraph and substitute -another. - -The paragraph proposed was to the following effect: - - _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the - United States in Congress assembled_, That the following - articles he proposed as amendments to the constitution, and - when ratified by three-fourths of the State Legislatures - shall become valid to all intents and purposes, as part of - the same. - -Under this title, the amendments might come in nearly as stated in the -report, only varying the phraseology so as to accommodate them to a -supplementary form. - -Mr. MADISON.--Form, sir, is always of less importance than the -substance; but on this occasion, I admit that form is of some -consequence, and it will be well for the House to pursue that which, -upon reflection, shall appear to be the most eligible. Now it appears to -me, that there is a neatness and propriety in incorporating the -amendments into the constitution itself; in that case the system will -remain uniform and entire; it will certainly be more simple, when the -amendments are interwoven into those parts to which they naturally -belong, than it will if they consist of separate and distinct parts. We -shall then be able to determine its meaning without references or -comparison; whereas, if they are supplementary, its meaning can only be -ascertained by a comparison of the two instruments, which will be a very -considerable embarrassment. It will be difficult to ascertain to what -parts of the instrument the amendments particularly refer; they will -create unfavorable comparisons; whereas, if they are placed upon the -footing here proposed, they will stand upon as good foundation as the -original work. - -Nor is it so uncommon a thing as gentlemen suppose; systematic men -frequently take up the whole law, and, with its amendments and -alterations, reduce it into one act. I am not, however, very solicitous -about the form, provided the business is but well completed. - -Mr. SMITH did not think the amendment proposed by the honorable -gentleman from Connecticut was compatible with the constitution, which -declared, that the amendments recommended by Congress, and ratified by -the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, should be part -of this constitution; in which case it would form one complete system; -but according to the idea of the amendment, the instrument is to have -five or six suits of improvements. Such a mode seems more calculated to -embarrass the people than any thing else, while nothing in his opinion -was a juster cause of complaint than the difficulties of knowing the -law, arising from legislative obscurities that might easily be avoided. -He said, that it had certainly been the custom in several of the State -Governments, to amend their laws by way of supplement. But South -Carolina had been an instance of the contrary practice, in revising the -old code; instead of making acts in addition to acts, which is always -attended with perplexity, she has incorporated them, and brought them -forward as a complete system, repealing the old. This is what he -understood was intended to be done by the committee; the present copy of -the constitution was to be done away, and a new one substituted in its -stead. - -Mr. LIVERMORE was clearly of opinion, that whatever amendments were -made to the constitution, they ought to stand separate from the original -instrument. We have no right, said he, to alter a clause, any otherwise -than by a new proposition. We have well-established precedents for such -a mode of procedure in the practice of the British Parliament, and the -State Legislatures throughout America. I do not mean, however, to assert -that there has been no instance of a repeal of the whole law on enacting -another; but this has generally taken place on account of the complexity -of the original, with its supplements. Were we a mere legislative body, -no doubt it might be warrantable in us to pursue a similar method; but -it is questionable whether it is possible for us, consistent with the -oath we have taken, to attempt a repeal of the constitution of the -United States, by making a new one to substitute in its place; the -reason of this is grounded on a very simple consideration. It is by -virtue of the present constitution, I presume, that we attempt to make -another; now, if we proceed to the repeal of this, I cannot see upon -what authority we shall erect another; if we destroy the base, the -superstructure falls of course. At some future day it may be asked upon -what authority we proceeded to raise and appropriate public moneys. We -suppose we do it in virtue of the present constitution; but it may be -doubted whether we have a right to exercise any of its authorities while -it is suspended, as it will certainly be from the time that two-thirds -of both Houses have agreed to submit it to the State Legislatures; so -that, unless we mean to destroy the whole constitution, we ought to be -careful how we attempt to amend it in the way proposed by the committee. -From hence, I presume it will be more prudent to adopt the mode proposed -by the gentleman from Connecticut, than it will be to risk the -destruction of the whole by proposing amendments in the manner -recommended by the committee. - -Mr. VINING disliked a supplementary form, and said it was a bad reason -to urge the practice of former ages, when there was a more convenient -method of doing the business at hand. He had seen an act entitled an act -to amend a supplement to an act entitled an act for altering part of an -act entitled an act for certain purposes therein mentioned. If gentlemen -were disposed to run into such jargon in amending and altering the -constitution, he could not help it; but he trusted they would adopt a -plainness and simplicity of style on this and every other occasion, -which should be easily understood. If the mode proposed by the gentleman -from Connecticut was adopted, the system would be distorted, and, like a -careless written letter, have more attached to it in a postscript than -was contained in the original composition. - -The constitution being a great and important work, ought all to be -brought into one view, and made as intelligible as possible. - -Mr. CLYMER was of opinion with the gentleman from Connecticut, that the -amendments ought not to be incorporated in the body of the work, which -he hoped would remain a monument to justify those who made it; by a -comparison, the world would discover the perfection of the original, and -the superfluity of the amendments. He made this distinction, because he -did not conceive any of the amendments essential, but as they were -solicited by his fellow-citizens, and for that reason they were -acquiesced in by others; he therefore wished the motion for throwing -them into a supplementary form might be carried. - -Mr. STONE.--It is not a matter of much consequence, with respect to the -preservation of the original instrument, whether the amendments are -incorporated or made distinct; because the records will always show the -original form in which it stood. But in my opinion, we ought to mark its -progress with truth in every step we take. If the amendments are -incorporated in the body of the work, it will appear, unless we refer to -the archives of Congress, that GEORGE WASHINGTON, and the other worthy -characters who composed the convention, signed an instrument which they -never had in contemplation. The one to which he affixed his signature -purports to be adopted by the unanimous consent of the delegates from -every State there assembled. Now if we incorporate these amendments, we -must undoubtedly go further, and say that the constitution so formed was -defective, and had need of alteration; we therefore purpose to repeal -the old and substitute a new one in its place. From this consideration -alone, I think we ought not to pursue the line of conduct drawn for us -by the committee. This perhaps is not the last amendment the -constitution may receive; we ought therefore to be careful how we set a -precedent which, in dangerous and turbulent times, may unhinge the -whole. - -Mr. LIVERMORE.--The mode adopted by the committee might be very proper, -provided Congress had the forming of a constitution in contemplation; -then they, or an individual member, might propose to strike out a clause -and insert another, as is done with respect to article 3, section 2. But -certainly no gentleman acquainted with legislative business would -pretend to alter and amend, in this manner, a law already passed. He was -convinced it could not be done properly in any other way than by the one -proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut. - -Mr. GERRY asked, if the mode could make any possible difference, -provided the sanction was the same; or whether it would operate -differently in any one instance? If it will not, we are disputing about -form, and the question will turn on the expediency. Now one gentleman -tells you, that he is so attached to this instrument, that he is -unwilling to lose any part of it; therefore, to gratify him, we may -throw it into a supplementary form. But let me ask, will not this as -effectually destroy some parts, as if the correction had been made by -way of incorporation? or will posterity have a more favorable opinion -of the original, because it has been amended by distinct acts? For my -part, I cannot see what advantage can accrue from adopting the motion of -the honorable gentleman from Connecticut, unless it be to give every one -the trouble of erasing out of his copy of the constitution certain words -and sentences, and inserting others. But, perhaps, in our great -veneration for the original composition, we may go further, and pass an -act to prohibit these interpolations, as it may injure the text. - -It is said that the present form of the amendments is contrary to the -5th article. I will not undertake to define the extent of the word -amendment, as it stands in the fifth article; but I suppose if we -proposed to change the division of the powers given to the three -branches of the Government, and that proposition is accepted and -ratified by three-fourths of the State Legislatures, it will become as -valid, to all intents and purposes, as any part of the constitution; but -if it is the opinion of gentlemen that the original is to be kept -sacred, amendments will be of no use, and had better be omitted; -whereas, on the other hand, if they are to be received as equal in -authority we shall have five or six constitutions, perhaps differing in -material points from each other, but all equally valid; so that they may -require a man of science to determine what is or is not the -constitution. This will certainly be attended with great inconvenience, -as the several States are bound not to make laws contradictory thereto, -and all officers are sworn to support it, without knowing precisely what -it is. - -Mr. STONE asked the gentleman last up, how he meant to have the -amendments incorporated? Was it intended to have the constitution -republished, and the alterations inserted in their proper places? He did -not see how it was practicable to propose amendments, without making out -a new constitution, in the manner brought forward by the committee. - -Mr. LAWRENCE could not conceive how gentlemen meant to engraft the -amendments into the constitution. The original one, executed by the -convention at Philadelphia, was lodged in the archives of the late -Congress; it was impossible for this House to take, and correct, and -interpolate that without making it speak a different language: this -would be supposing several things which never were contemplated. But -what would become of the acts of Congress? They will certainly be -vitiated, unless they are provided for by an additional clause in the -constitution. - -Mr. BENSON said, that this question had been agitated in the select -committee, and determined in favor of the form in which it was reported; -he believed this decision was founded in a great degree upon the -recommendation of the State conventions, which had proposed amendments -in this very form. This pointed out the mode most agreeable to the -people of America, and therefore the one most eligible for Congress to -pursue; it will likewise be the most convenient way. Suppose the -amendments ratified by the several States; Congress may order a number -of copies to be printed, into which the alterations will be inserted, -and the work stand perfect and entire. - -Mr. MADISON.--The gentleman last up has left me but one remark to add, -and that is, if we adopt the amendment, we shall so far unhinge the -business, as to occasion alterations in every article and clause of the -report. - -Mr. HARTLEY hoped the committee would not agree to the alteration, -because it would perplex the business. He wished the propositions to be -simple and entire, that the State Legislatures might decide without -hesitation, and every man know what was the ground on which he rested -his political welfare. Besides, the consequent changes which the motion -would induce, were such as, he feared, would take up some days, if not -weeks; and the time of the House was too precious to be squandered away -in discussing mere matter of form. - -Mr. JACKSON.--I do not like to differ with gentlemen about form; but as -so much has been said, I wish to give my opinion; it is this: that the -original constitution ought to remain inviolate, and not be patched up, -from time to time, with various stuffs resembling Joseph's coat of many -colors. - -Some gentlemen talk of repealing the present constitution, and adopting -an improved one. If we have this power, we may go on from year to year, -making new ones; and in this way, we shall render the basis of the -superstructure the most fluctuating thing imaginable, and the people -will never know what the constitution is. As for the alteration proposed -by the committee, to prefix before "We the people" certain dogmas, I -cannot agree to it; the words, as they now stand, speak as much as it is -possible to speak; it is a practical recognition of the right of the -people to ordain and establish Governments, and is more expressive than -any other mere paper declaration. - -But why will gentlemen contend for incorporating amendments into the -constitution? They say, that it is necessary for the people to have the -whole before them in one view. Have they precedent for this assertion? -Look at the constitution of Great Britain; is that all contained in one -instrument? It is well known, that _magna charta_ was extorted by the -barons from King John some centuries ago. Has that been altered since by -the incorporation of amendments? Or does it speak the same language now, -as it did at the time it was obtained? Sir, it is not altered a tittle -from its original form. Yet there have been many amendments and -improvements in the constitution of Britain since that period. In the -subsequent reign of his son, the great charters were confirmed with some -supplemental acts. Is the _habeas corpus_ act, or the statute _De -Tallagio non concedendo_ incorporated in _magna charta_? And yet there -is not an Englishman but would spill the last drop of his blood in -their defence; it is these, with some other acts of Parliament and -_magna charta_, that form the basis of English liberty. We have seen -amendments to their constitution during the present reign, by -establishing the independence of the judges, who are hereafter to be -appointed during good behavior; formerly they were at the pleasure of -the Crown. But was this done by striking out and inserting other words -in the great charter? No, sir, the constitution is composed of many -distinct acts; but an Englishman would be ashamed to own that, on this -account, he could not ascertain his own privileges or the authority of -the Government. - -The constitution of the Union has been ratified and established by the -people; let their act remain inviolable; if any thing we can do has a -tendency to improve it, let it be done, but without mutilating and -defacing the original. - -Mr. SHERMAN.--If I had looked upon this question as mere matter of form, -I should not have brought it forward or troubled the committee with such -a lengthy discussion. But, sir, I contend that amendments made in the -way proposed by the committee are void. No gentleman ever knew an -addition and alteration introduced into an existing law, and that any -part of such law was left in force; but if it was improved or altered by -a supplemental act, the original retained all its validity and -importance, in every case where the two were not incompatible. But if -these observations alone should be thought insufficient to support my -motion, I would desire gentlemen to consider the authorities upon which -the two constitutions are to stand. The original was established by the -people at large, by conventions chosen by them for the express purpose. -The preamble to the constitution declares the act: but will it be a -truth in ratifying the next constitution, which is to be done perhaps by -the State Legislatures, and not conventions chosen for the purpose? Will -gentlemen say it is "We the people" in this case? Certainly they cannot; -for, by the present constitution, we, nor all the Legislatures in the -Union together, do not possess the power of repealing it. All that is -granted us by the 5th article is, that whenever we shall think it -necessary, we may propose amendments to the constitution; not that we -may propose to repeal the old, and substitute a new one. - -Gentlemen say, it would be convenient to have it in one instrument, that -people might see the whole at once; for my part, I view no difficulty on -this point. The amendments reported are a declaration of rights; the -people are secure in them, whether we declare them or not; the last -amendment but one provides that the three branches of Government shall -each exercise its own rights. This is well secured already; and, in -short, I do not see that they lessen the force of any article in the -constitution; if so, there can be little more difficulty in -comprehending them whether they are combined in one, or stand distinct -instruments. - -Mr. SMITH read extracts from the amendments proposed by several of the -State conventions at the time they ratified the constitution, from -which, he said, it appeared that they were generally of opinion that the -phraseology of the constitution ought to be altered; nor would this mode -of proceeding repeal any part of the constitution but such as it -touched, the remainder will be in force during the time of considering -it and ever after. - -As to the observations made by the honorable gentleman from Georgia, -respecting the amendments made to the constitution of Great Britain, -they did not apply; the cases were nothing like similar, and, -consequently, could not be drawn into precedent. The constitution of -Britain is neither the _magna charta_ of John, nor the _habeas corpus_ -act, nor all the charters put together; it is what the Parliament wills. -It is true, there are rights granted to the subject that cannot be -resumed; but the constitution, or form of government, may be altered by -the authority of Parliament, whose power is absolute without control. - -Mr. SHERMAN.--The gentlemen who oppose the motion say we contend for -matter of form; they think it nothing more. Now we say we contend for -substance, and therefore cannot agree to amendments in this way. If they -are so desirous of having the business completed, they had better -sacrifice what they consider but a matter of indifference to gentlemen, -to go more unanimously along with them in altering the constitution. - -The question on Mr. SHERMAN'S motion was now put and lost.[29] - - -FRIDAY, August 14. - -ABIEL FOSTER, from New Hampshire, appeared and took his seat. - - -SATURDAY, August 15. - -_Amendments to the Constitution._ - -FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE. - -Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert, "no -religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of -conscience be infringed." - -Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression -used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a -construction different from what had been made by the committee. He -feared it might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion -altogether. - -Mr. VINING suggested the propriety of transposing the two members of the -sentence. - -Mr. GERRY said, it would read better if it was, that no religious -doctrine shall be established by law. - -Mr. SHERMAN thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as -Congress had no authority whatever delegated to them by the constitution -to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it -struck out. - -Mr. CARROLL.--As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of -peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of -governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion, that -they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was -much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more -towards conciliating the minds of the people to the Government than -almost any other amendment he had heard proposed. He would not contend -with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the -substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part -of the community. - -Mr. MADISON said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that -Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal -observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner -contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he -did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the State -Conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of -the constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws -necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the -laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might -infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to -prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he -thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit. - -Mr. HUNTINGTON said, that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this -subject, that the words might be taken in such a latitude as to be -extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment -to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but -others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it. The -ministers of their congregations to the eastward were maintained by the -contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expense of -building meeting-houses was contributed in the same manner. These things -were regulated by by-laws. If an action was brought before a Federal -Court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his -engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers, -or building of places of worship, might be construed into a religious -establishment. - -By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; -he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the -people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, -the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of -conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to -patronize those who professed no religion at all. - -Mr. MADISON thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, -it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the -people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine -together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to -conform. He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point -the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent. - -Mr. LIVERMORE was not satisfied with that amendment; but he did not wish -them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it -was altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make -no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience. - -Mr. GERRY did not like the term national, proposed by the gentleman from -Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought -to his mind some observations that had taken place in the conventions at -the time they were considering the present constitution. It had been -insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form -of Government consolidated the Union; the honorable gentleman's motion -shows that he considers it in the same light. Those who were called -anti-federalists at that time complained that they had injustice done -them by the title, because they were in favor of a Federal government, -and the others were in favor of a national one; the federalists were for -ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others not until -amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been -distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and -anti-rats. - -Mr. MADISON withdrew his motion, but observed that the words "no -national religion shall be established by law," did not imply that the -Government was a national one; the question was then taken on Mr. -Livermore's motion, and passed in the affirmative, thirty-one for, and -twenty against it. - - -_Amendments to the Constitution._ - -RIGHT OF INSTRUCTION. - -"The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people -peaceably to assemble and consult for the common good, and to apply to -the Government for a redress of grievances," being the clause under -consideration, Mr. TUCKER, of South Carolina, moved to add thereto these -words--_to instruct their representatives_. - -Mr. HARTLEY wished the motion had not been made, for gentlemen -acquainted with the circumstances of this country, and the history of -the country from which we separated, differed exceedingly on this -point. The members of the House of Representatives, said he, are chosen -for two years, the members of the Senate for six. - -According to the principles laid down in the Constitution, it is -presumable that the persons elected know the interests and the -circumstances of their constituents, and being checked in their -determinations by a division of the Legislative power into two branches, -there is little danger of error. At least it ought to be supposed that -they have the confidence of the people during the period for which they -are elected; and if, by misconduct, they forfeit it, their constituents -have the power of leaving them out at the expiration of that time--thus -they are answerable for the part they have taken in measures that may be -contrary to the general wish. - -Representation is the principle of our Government; the people ought to -have confidence in the honor and integrity of those they send forward to -transact their business; their right to instruct them is a problematical -subject. We have seen it attended with bad consequences, both in England -and America. When the passions of the people are excited, instructions -have been resorted to and obtained, to answer party purposes; and -although the public opinion is generally respectable, yet at such -moments it has been known to be often wrong; and happy is that -Government composed of men of firmness and wisdom to discover, and -resist popular error. - -If, in a small community, where the interests, habits, and manners are -neither so numerous nor diversified, instructions bind not, what shall -we say of instructions to this body? Can it be supposed that the -inhabitants of a single district in a State, are better informed with -respect to the general interests of the Union, than a select body -assembled from every part? Can it be supposed that a part will be more -desirous of promoting the good of the whole than the whole will of the -part? I apprehend, sir, that Congress will be the best judges of proper -measures, and that instructions will never be resorted to but for party -purposes, when they will generally contain the prejudices and acrimony -of the party, rather than the dictates of honest reason and sound -policy. - -In England this question has been considerably agitated. The -representatives of some towns in Parliament have acknowledged, and -submitted to the binding force of instructions, while the majority have -thrown off the shackles with disdain. I would not have this precedent -influence our decision; but let the doctrine be tried upon its own -merits, and stand or fall as it shall be found to deserve. - -It appears to my mind, that the principle of representation is distinct -from an agency, which may require written instructions. The great end of -meeting is to consult for the common good; but can the common good be -discerned without the object is reflected and shown in every light. A -local or partial view does not necessarily enable any man to comprehend -it clearly; this can only result from an inspection into the aggregate. -Instructions viewed in this light will be found to embarrass the best -and wisest men. And were all the members to take their seats in order to -obey instructions, and those instructions were as various as it is -probable they would be, what possibility would there exist of so -accommodating each to the other as to produce any act whatever? Perhaps -a majority of the whole might not be instructed to agree to any one -point, and is it thus the people of the United States propose to form a -more perfect union, provide for the common defence, and promote the -general welfare? - -Sir, I have known within my own time so many inconveniences and real -evils arise from adopting the popular opinions on the moment, that, -although I respect them as much as any man, I hope this Government will -particularly guard against them, at least that they will not bind -themselves by a constitutional act, and by oath, to submit to their -influence; if they do, the great object which this Government has been -established to attain, will inevitably elude our grasp on the uncertain -and veering winds of popular commotion. - -Mr. PAGE.--The gentleman from Pennsylvania tells you, that in England -this principle is doubted; how far this is consonant with the nature of -the Government I will not pretend to say; but I am not astonished to -find that the administrators of a monarchical Government are -unassailable by the weak voice of the people; but under a democracy, -whose great end is to form a code of laws congenial with the public -sentiment, the popular opinion ought to be collected and attended to. -Our present object is, I presume, to secure to our constituents and to -posterity these inestimable rights. Our Government is derived from the -people; of consequence the people have a right to consult for the common -good; but to what end will this be done, if they have not the power of -instructing their representatives? Instruction and representation in a -republic, appear to me to be inseparably connected; but were I the -subject of a monarch, I should doubt whether the public good did not -depend more upon the prince's will than the will of the people. I should -dread a popular assembly consulting for the public good, because, under -its influence, commotions and tumults might arise that would shake the -foundation of the monarch's throne, and make the empire tremble in -expectation. The people of England have submitted the crown to the -Hanover family, and have rejected the Stuarts. If instructions upon such -a revolution were considered binding, it is difficult to know what would -have been the effects. It might be well, therefore, to have the doctrine -exploded from that kingdom; but it will not be advanced as a substantial -reason in favor of our treading in the same steps. - -The honorable gentleman has said, that when once the people have chosen -a representative, they must rely on his integrity and judgment during -the period for which he is elected. I think, sir, to doubt the authority -of the people to instruct their representatives, will give them just -cause to be alarmed for their fate. I look upon it as a dangerous -doctrine, subversive of the great end for which the United States have -confederated. Every friend of mankind, every well-wisher of his country, -will be desirous of obtaining the sense of the people on every occasion -of magnitude; but how can this be so well expressed as in instructions -to their representatives? I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will not -oppose the insertion of it in this part of the report. - -Mr. CLYMER.--I hope the amendment will not be adopted; but if our -constituents choose to instruct us, that they may be left at liberty to -do so. Do gentlemen foresee the extent of these words? If they have a -constitutional right to instruct us, it infers that we are bound by -those instructions; and as we ought not to decide constitutional -questions by implication, I presume we shall be called upon to go -further, and expressly declare the members of the Legislature bound by -the instruction of their constituents. This is a most dangerous -principle, utterly destructive of all ideas of an independent and -deliberative body, which are essential requisites in the Legislatures of -free Governments; they prevent men of abilities and experience from -rendering those services to the community that are in their power, -destroying the object contemplated by establishing an efficient General -Government, and rendering Congress a mere passive machine. - -Mr. SHERMAN.--It appears to me, that the words are calculated to mislead -the people, by conveying an idea that they have a right to control the -debates of the Legislature. This cannot be admitted to be just, because -it would destroy the object of their meeting. I think, when the people -have chosen a representative, it is his duty to meet others from the -different parts of the Union, and consult, and agree with them to such -acts as are for the general benefit of the whole community. If they were -to be guided by instructions, there would be no use in deliberation; all -that a man would have to do, would be to produce his instructions, and -lay them on the table, and let them speak for him. From hence I think it -may be fairly inferred, that the right of the people to consult for the -common good can go no further than to petition the Legislature, or apply -for a redress of grievances. It is the duty of a good representative to -inquire what measures are most likely to promote the general welfare, -and, after he has discovered them, to give them his support. Should his -instructions, therefore, coincide with his ideas on any measure, they -would be unnecessary; if they were contrary to the conviction of his own -mind, he must be bound by every principle of justice to disregard them. - -Mr. JACKSON was in favor of the right of the people to assemble and -consult for the common good; it had been used in this country as one of -the best checks on the British Legislature in their unjustifiable -attempts to tax the colonies without their consent. America had no -representatives in the British Parliament, therefore they could instruct -none, yet they exercised the power of consultation to a good effect. He -begged gentlemen to consider the dangerous tendency of establishing such -a doctrine; it would necessarily drive the House into a number of -factions. There might be different instructions from every State, and -the representation from each State would be a faction to support its own -measures. - -If we establish this as a right, we shall be bound by those -instructions; now, I am willing to leave both the people and -representatives to their own discretion on this subject. Let the people -consult and give their opinion; let the representative judge of it; and -if it is just, let him govern himself by it as a good member ought to -do; but if it is otherwise, let him have it in his power to reject their -advice. - -What may be the consequence of binding a man to vote in all cases -according to the will of others? He is to decide upon a constitutional -point, and on this question his conscience is bound by the obligation of -a solemn oath; you now involve him in a serious dilemma. If he votes -according to his conscience, he decides against his instructions; but in -deciding against his instructions, he commits a breach of the -constitution, by infringing the prerogative of the people, secured to -them by this declaration. In short, it will give rise to such a variety -of absurdities and inconsistencies, as no prudent Legislature would wish -to involve themselves in. - -Mr. GERRY.--By the checks provided in the constitution, we have good -grounds to believe that the very framers of it conceived that the -Government would be liable to maladministration, and I presume that the -gentlemen of this House do not mean to arrogate to themselves more -perfection than human nature has as yet been found to be capable of; if -they do not, they will admit an additional check against abuses which -this, like every other Government, is subject to. Instruction from the -people will furnish this in a considerable degree. - -It has been said that the amendment proposed by the honorable gentleman -from South Carolina (Mr. TUCKER) determines this point, "that the people -can bind their representatives to follow their instructions." I do not -conceive that this necessarily follows. I think the representative, -notwithstanding the insertion of these words, would be at liberty to act -as he pleased; if he declined to pursue such measures as he was directed -to attain, the people would have a right to refuse him their suffrages -at a future election. - -Now, though I do not believe the amendment would bind the -representatives to obey the instructions, yet I think the people have a -right both to instruct and bind them. Do gentlemen conceive that on any -occasion instructions would be so general as to proceed from all our -constituents? If they do, it is the sovereign will; for gentlemen will -not contend that the sovereign will presides in the Legislature. The -friends and patrons of this constitution have always declared that the -sovereignty resides in the people, and that they do not part with it on -any occasion; to say the sovereignty vests in the people and that they -have not a right to instruct and control their representatives is absurd -to the last degree. They must either give up their principle, or grant -that the people have a right to exercise their sovereignty to control -the whole Government, as well as this branch of it. But the amendment -does not carry the principle to such an extent, it only declares the -right of the people to send instructions; the representative will, if he -thinks proper, communicate his instructions to the House, but how far -they shall operate on his conduct, he will judge for himself. - -The honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. JACKSON) supposes that -instructions will tend to generate factions in this House; but he did -not see how it could have that effect, any more than the freedom of -debate had. If the representative entertains the same opinion with his -constituents, he will decide with them in favor of the measure; if other -gentlemen, who are not instructed on this point, are convinced by -argument that the measure is proper, they will also vote with them; -consequently the influence of debate and of instruction is the same. - -The gentleman says further, that the people have the right of -instructing their representatives; if so, why not declare it? Does he -mean that it shall lie dormant and never be exercised? If so, it will be -a right of no utility. But much good may result from a declaration in -the constitution that they possess this privilege; the people will be -encouraged to come forward with their instructions, which will form a -fund of useful information for the Legislature. We cannot, I apprehend, -be too well informed of the true state, condition, and sentiment of our -constituents, and perhaps this is the best mode in our power of -obtaining information. I hope we shall never shut our ears against that -information which is to be derived from the petitions and instructions -of our constituents. I hope we shall never presume to think that all the -wisdom of this country is concentrated within the walls of this House. -Men, unambitious of distinctions from their fellow-citizens, remain -within their own domestic walk, unheard of and unseen, possessing all -the advantages resulting from a watchful observance of public men and -public measures, whose voice, if we would descend to listen to it, would -give us knowledge superior to what could be acquired amidst the cares -and bustles of a public life; let us then adopt the amendment, and -encourage the diffident to enrich our stock of knowledge with the -treasure of their remarks and observations. - -Mr. MADISON.--I think the committee acted prudently in omitting to -insert these words in the report they have brought forward; if, -unfortunately, the attempt of proposing amendments should prove -abortive, it will not arise from the want of a disposition in the -friends of the constitution to do what is right with respect to securing -the rights and privileges of the people of America, but from the -difficulties arising from discussing and proposing abstract propositions -of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we -confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles, -the ratification will meet with but little difficulty. Amendments of a -doubtful nature will have a tendency to prejudice the whole system; the -proposition now suggested partakes highly of this nature. It is doubted -by many gentlemen here; it has been objected to in intelligent -publications throughout the Union; it is doubted by many members of the -State Legislatures. In one sense this declaration is true, in many -others it is certainly not true; in the sense in which it is true, we -have asserted the right sufficiently in what we have done; if we mean -nothing more than this, that the people have a right to express and -communicate their sentiments and wishes, we have provided for it -already. The right of freedom of speech is secured; the liberty of the -press is expressly declared to be beyond the reach of this Government; -the people may therefore publicly address their representatives, may -privately advise them, or declare their sentiments by petition to the -whole body; in all these ways they may communicate their will. If -gentlemen mean to go further, and to say that the people have a right to -instruct their representatives in such a sense as that the delegates are -obliged to conform to those instructions, the declaration is not true. -Suppose they instruct a representative, by his vote, to violate the -constitution; is he at liberty to obey such instructions? Suppose he is -instructed to patronize certain measures, and from circumstances known -to him, but not to his constituents, he is convinced that they will -endanger the public good; is he obliged to sacrifice his own judgment to -them? Is he absolutely bound to perform what he is instructed to do? -Suppose he refuses, will his vote be the less valid, or the community be -disengaged from that obedience which is due to the laws of the Union? If -his vote must inevitably have the same effect, what sort of a right is -this in the constitution, to instruct a representative who has a right -to disregard the order, if he pleases? In this sense the right does not -exist, in the other sense it does exist, and is provided largely for. - -The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts asks if the sovereignty is -not with the people at large. Does he infer that the people can, in -detached bodies, contravene an act established by the whole people? My -idea of the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the -constitution if they please; but while the constitution exists, they -must conform themselves to its dictates. But I do not believe that the -inhabitants of any district can speak the voice of the people; so far -from it, their ideas may contradict the sense of the whole people; hence -the consequence that instructions are binding on the representative is -of a doubtful, if not of a dangerous nature. I do not conceive, -therefore, that it is necessary to agree to the proposition now made; so -far as any real good is to arise from it, so far that real good is -provided for; so far as it is of a doubtful nature, so far it obliges us -to run the risk of losing the whole system. - -Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--I am opposed to this motion, because I -conceive it will operate as a partial inconvenience to the more distant -States. If every member is to be bound by instructions how to vote, what -are gentlemen from the extremities of the continent to do? Members from -the neighboring States can obtain their instructions earlier than those -from the Southern ones, and I presume that particular instructions will -be necessary for particular measures; of consequence, we vote perhaps -against instructions on their way to us, or we must decline voting at -all. But what is the necessity of having a numerous representation? One -member from a State can receive the instructions, and by his vote answer -all the purposes of many, provided his vote is allowed to count for the -proportion the State ought to send; in this way the business might be -done at a less expense than having one or two hundred members in the -House, which had been strongly contended for yesterday. - -Mr. STONE.--I think the clause would change the Government entirely; -instead of being a Government founded upon representation, it would be a -democracy of singular properties. - -I differ from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON), if he thinks -this clause would not bind the representative; in my opinion, it would -bind him effectually, and I venture to assert, without diffidence, that -any law passed by the Legislature would be of no force, if a majority of -the members of this House were instructed to the contrary, provided the -amendment became part of the constitution. What would follow from this? -Instead of looking in the code of laws passed by Congress, your -Judiciary would have to collect and examine the instructions from the -various parts of the Union. It follows very clearly from hence, that the -Government would be altered from a representative one to a democracy, -wherein all laws are made immediately by the voice of the people. - -This is a power not to be found in any part of the earth except among -the Swiss cantons; there the body of the people vote upon the laws, and -give instructions to their delegates. But here we have a different form -of Government; the people at large are not authorized under it to vote -upon the law, nor did I ever hear that any man required it. Why, then, -are we called upon to propose amendments subversive of the principles -of the constitution, which were never desired? - -Several members now called for the question, and the Chairman being -about to put the same: - -Mr. GERRY.--Gentlemen seem in a great hurry to get this business -through. I think, Mr. Chairman, it requires a further discussion; for my -part, I had rather do less business and do it well, than precipitate -measures before they are fully understood. - -The honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) stated, that if the -proposed amendments are defeated, it will be by the delay attending the -discussion of doubtful propositions; and he declares this to partake of -that quality. It is natural, sir, for us to be fond of our own work. We -do not like to see it disfigured by other hands. That honorable -gentleman brought forward a string of propositions; among them was the -clause now proposed to be amended: he is no doubt ready for the -question, and determined not to admit what we think an improvement. The -gentlemen who were on the committee, and brought in the report, have -considered the subject, and are also ripe for a decision. But other -gentlemen may crave a like indulgence. Is not the report before us for -deliberation and discussion, and to obtain the sense of the House upon -it; and will not gentlemen allow us a day or two for these purposes, -after they have forced us to proceed upon them at this time? I appeal to -their candor and good sense on the occasion, and am sure not to be -refused; and I must inform them now, that they may not be surprised -hereafter, that I wish all the amendments proposed by the respective -States to be considered. Gentlemen say it is necessary to finish the -subject, in order to reconcile a number of our fellow-citizens to the -Government. If this is their principle, they ought to consider the -wishes and intentions which the convention has expressed for them; if -they do this, they will find that they expect and wish for the -declaration proposed by the honorable gentleman over the way (Mr. -TUCKER), and, of consequence, they ought to agree to it; and why it, -with others recommended in the same way, were not reported, I cannot -pretend to say; the committee know this best themselves. - -The honorable gentleman near me (Mr. STONE) says, that the laws passed -contrary to instruction will be nugatory. And other gentlemen ask, if -their constituents instruct them to violate the constitution, whether -they must do it. Sir, does not the constitution declare that all laws -passed by Congress are paramount to the laws and constitutions of the -several States; if our decrees are of such force as to set aside the -State laws and constitutions, certainly they may be repugnant to any -instructions whatever, without being injured thereby. But can we -conceive that our constituents would be so absurd as to instruct us to -violate our oath, and act directly contrary to the principles of a -Government ordained by themselves? We must look upon them to be -absolutely abandoned and false to their own interests, to suppose them -capable of giving such instructions. - -If this amendment is introduced into the constitution, I do not think we -shall be much troubled with instructions; a knowledge of the right will -operate to check a spirit that would render instruction necessary. - -The honorable gentleman from Virginia asked, will not the affirmative of -a member who votes repugnant to his instructions bind the community as -much as the votes of those who conform? There is no doubt, sir, but it -will; but does this tend to show that the constituent has no right to -instruct? Surely not. I admit, sir, that instructions contrary to the -constitution ought not to bind, though the sovereignty resides in the -people. The honorable gentleman acknowledges that the sovereignty vests -there; if so, it may exercise its will in any case not inconsistent with -a previous contract. The same gentleman asks if we are to give the power -to the people in detached bodies to contravene the Government while it -exists. Certainly not; nor does the proposed proposition extend to that -point; it is only intended to open for them a convenient mode in which -they may convey their sense to their agents. The gentleman therefore -takes for granted what is inadmissible, that Congress will always be -doing illegal things, and make it necessary for the sovereign to declare -its pleasure. - -He says the people have a right to alter the constitution, but they have -no right to oppose the Government. If, while the Government exists, they -have no right to control it, it appears they have divested themselves of -the sovereignty over the constitution. Therefore, our language, with our -principles, must change, and we ought to say that the sovereignty -existed in the people previous to the establishment of this Government. -This will be ground for alarm indeed, if it is true; but I trust, sir, -too much to the good sense of my fellow-citizens ever to believe that -the doctrine will generally obtain in this country of freedom. - -Mr. VINING.--If, Mr. Chairman, there appears on one side too great an -urgency to despatch this business, there appears on the other an -unnecessary delay and procrastination equally improper and unpardonable. -I think this business has been already well considered by the House, and -every gentleman in it; however, I am not for an unseemly expedition. - -Mr. LIVERMORE was not very anxious whether the words were inserted or -not, but he had a great deal of doubt on the meaning of this whole -amendment; it provides that the people may meet and consult for the -common good. Does this mean a part of the people in a township or -district, or does it mean the representatives in the State Legislatures? -If it means the latter, there is no occasion for a provision that the -Legislature may instruct the members of this body. - -In some States the representatives are chosen by districts. In such -case, perhaps, the instructions may be considered as coming from the -district; but in other States, each representative is chosen by the -whole people. In New Hampshire it is the case; the instructions of any -particular place would have but little weight, but a legislative -instruction would have considerable influence upon each representative. -If, therefore, the words mean that the Legislature may instruct, he -presumed it would have considerable effect, though he did not believe it -binding. Indeed, he was inclined to pay a deference to any information -he might receive from any number of gentlemen, even by a private letter; -but as for full binding force, no instructions contained that quality. -They could not, nor ought they to have it, because different parties -pursue different measures; and it might be expedient, nay, absolutely -necessary, to sacrifice them in mutual concessions. - -The doctrine of instructions would hold better in England than here, -because the boroughs and corporations might have an interest to pursue -totally immaterial to the rest of the kingdom; in that case, it would be -prudent to instruct their members in Parliament. - -Mr. GERRY wished the constitution amended without his having any hand in -it; but if he must interfere, he would do his duty. The honorable -gentleman from Delaware had given him an example of moderation and -laconic and consistent debate that he meant to follow; and would just -observe to the worthy gentleman last up, that several States had -proposed the amendment, and among the rest, New Hampshire. - -There was one remark which escaped him, when he was up before. The -gentleman from Maryland (Mr. STONE) had said that the amendment would -change the nature of the Government, and make it a democracy. Now he had -always heard that it was a democracy; but perhaps he was misled, and the -honorable gentleman was right in distinguishing it by some other -appellation; perhaps an aristocracy was a term better adapted to it. - -Mr. SEDGWICK opposed the idea of the gentleman from New Hampshire, that -the State Legislature had the power of instructing the members of this -House; he looked upon it as a subornation of the rights of the people to -admit such an authority. We stand not here, said he, the representatives -of the State Legislatures, as under the former Congress, but as the -representatives of the great body of the people. The sovereignty, the -independence, and the rights of the States are intended to be guarded by -the Senate; if we are to be viewed in any other light, the greatest -security the people have for their rights and privileges is destroyed. - -But with respect to instructions, it is well worthy of consideration how -they are to be procured. It is not the opinion of an individual that is -to control my conduct: I consider myself as the representative of the -whole Union. An individual may give me information, but his sentiments -may he in opposition to the sense of the majority of the people. If -instructions are to be of any efficacy, they must speak the sense of the -majority of the people, at least of a State. In a State so large as -Massachusetts it will behoove gentlemen to consider how the sense of the -majority of the freemen is to be obtained and communicated. Let us take -care to avoid the insertion of crude and indigested propositions, more -likely to produce acrimony than that spirit of harmony which we ought to -cultivate. - -Mr. LIVERMORE said that he did not understand the honorable gentleman, -or was not understood by him; he did not presume peremptorily to say -what degree of influence the legislative instructions would have on a -representative. He knew it was not the thing in contemplation here; and -what he had said respected only the influence it would have on his -private judgment. - -Mr. AMES said there would be a very great inconvenience attending the -establishment of the doctrine contended for by his colleague. Those -States which had selected their members by districts would have no right -to give them instructions, consequently the members ought to withdraw; -in which case the House might be reduced below a majority, and not be -able, according to the constitution, to do any business at all. - -According to the doctrine of the gentleman from New Hampshire, one part -of the Government would be annihilated; for of what avail is it that the -people have the appointment of a representative, if he is to pay -obedience to the dictates of another body? - -Several members now rose, and called for the question. - -Mr. PAGE was sorry to see gentlemen so impatient; the more so, as he saw -there was very little attention paid to any thing that was said; but he -would express his sentiments if he was only heard by the Chair. He -discovered clearly, notwithstanding what had been observed by the most -ingenious supporters of the opposition, that there was an absolute -necessity for adopting the amendment. It was strictly compatible with -the spirit and the nature of the Government; all power vests in the -people of the United States; it is therefore a Government of the people, -a democracy. If it were consistent with the peace and tranquillity of -the inhabitants, every freeman would have a right to come and give his -vote upon the law; but, inasmuch as this cannot be done, by reason of -the extent of territory, and some other causes, the people have agreed -that their representatives shall exercise a part of their authority. To -pretend to refuse them the power of instructing their agents, appears to -me to deny them a right. One gentleman asks how the instructions are to -be collected. Many parts of this country have been in the practice of -instructing their representatives; they found no difficulty in -communicating their sense. Another gentleman asks if they were to -instruct us to make paper money, what we would do. I would tell them, -said he, it was unconstitutional; alter that, and we will consider on -the point. Unless laws are made satisfactory to the people, they will -lose their support, they will be abused or done away; this tends to -destroy the efficiency of the Government. - -It is the sense of several of the conventions that this amendment should -take place; I think it my duty to support it, and fear it will spread an -alarm among our constituents if we decline to do it. - -Mr. WADSWORTH.--Instructions have frequently been given to the -representatives of the United States; but the people did not claim as a -right that they should have any obligation upon the representatives; it -is not right that they should. In troublous times, designing men have -drawn the people to instruct the representatives to their harm; the -representatives have, on such occasions, refused to comply with their -instructions. I have known, myself, that they have been disobeyed, and -yet the representative was not brought to account for it; on the -contrary he was caressed and re-elected, while those who have obeyed -them, contrary to their private sentiments, have ever after been -despised for it. Now, if people considered it an inherent right in them -to instruct their representatives, they would have undoubtedly punished -the violation of them. I have no idea of instructions, unless they are -obeyed; a discretional power is incompatible with them. - -Mr. BURKE.--I am not positive with respect to the particular expression -in the declaration of rights of the people of Maryland, but the -constitutions of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, all of -them recognize, in express terms, the right of the people to give -instruction to their representatives. I do not mean to insist -particularly upon this amendment; but I am very well satisfied that -those that are reported and likely to be adopted by this House are very -far from giving satisfaction to our constituents; they are not those -solid and substantial amendments which the people expect; they are -little better than whip-syllabub, frothy and full of wind, formed only -to please the palate; or they are like a tub thrown out to a whale, to -secure the freight of the ship and its peaceable voyage. In my judgment, -the people will not be gratified by the mode we have pursued in bringing -them forward. There was a committee of eleven appointed; and out of the -number I think there were five who were members of the convention that -formed the constitution. Such gentlemen, having already given their -opinion with respect to the perfection of the work, may be thought -improper agents to bring forward amendments. Upon the whole, I think it -will be found that we have done nothing but lose our time, and that it -will be better to drop the subject now, and proceed to the organization -of the Government. - -The question was now called for from several parts of the House; but a -desultory conversation took place before the question was put. At length -the call becoming general, it was stated from the Chair, and determined -in the negative, 10 rising in favor of it, and 41 against it. - - -TUESDAY, August 18. - -_Amendments to the Constitution._ - -Mr. GERRY moved, "That such of the amendments to the constitution -proposed by the several States, as are not in substance comprised in the -report of the select committee appointed to consider amendments, be -referred to a Committee of the whole House; and that all amendments -which shall be agreed to by the committee last mentioned be included in -one report." - -Mr. TUCKER remarked, that many citizens expected that the amendments -proposed by the conventions would be attended to by the House, and that -several members conceived it to be their duty to bring them forward. If -the House should decline taking them into consideration, it might tend -to destroy that harmony which had hitherto existed, and which did great -honor to their proceedings; it might affect all their future measures, -and promote such feuds as might embarrass the Government exceedingly. -The States who had proposed these amendments would feel some degree of -chagrin at having misplaced their confidence in the General Government. -Five important States have pretty plainly expressed their apprehensions -of the danger to which the rights of their citizens are exposed. Finding -these cannot be secured in the mode they had wished, they will naturally -recur to the alternative, and endeavor to obtain a federal convention; -the consequence of this may be disagreeable to the Union; party spirit -may be revived, and animosities rekindled destructive of tranquillity. -States that exert themselves to obtain a federal convention, and those -that oppose the measure, may feel so strongly the spirit of discord, as -to sever the Union asunder. - -If in this conflict the advocates for a federal convention should prove -successful, the consequences may be alarming; we may lose many of the -valuable principles now established in the present constitution. If, on -the other hand, a convention should not be obtained, the consequences -resulting are equally to be dreaded; it would render the administration -of this system of government weak, if not impracticable; for no -government can be administered with energy, however energetic its -system, unless it obtains the confidence and support of the people. -Which of the two evils is the greatest would be difficult to ascertain. - -It is essential to our deliberations that the harmony of the House be -preserved; by it alone we shall be enabled to perfect the organization -of the Government--a Government but in embryo, or at best but in its -infancy. - -My idea relative to this constitution, whilst it was dependent upon the -assent of the several States, was, that it required amendment, and that -the proper time for amendment was previous to the ratification. My -reasons were, that I conceived it difficult, if not impossible, to -obtain essential amendments by the way pointed out in the constitution; -nor have I been mistaken in this suspicion. It will be found, I fear, -still more difficult than I apprehended; for perhaps these amendments, -should they be agreed to by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, will -be submitted for ratification to the Legislatures of the several States, -instead of State conventions, in which case the chance is still worse. -The Legislatures of almost all the States consist of two independent, -distinct bodies; the amendments must be adopted by three-fourths of such -Legislatures; that is to say, they must meet the approbation of the -majority of each of eighteen deliberative assemblies. But, -notwithstanding all these objections to obtaining amendments after the -ratification of the constitution, it will tend to give a great degree of -satisfaction to those who are desirous of them, if this House shall take -them up, and consider them with that degree of candor and attention they -have hitherto displayed on the subjects that have come before them; -consider the amendments separately, and, after fair deliberation, either -approve or disapprove of them. By such conduct, we answer in some degree -the expectations of those citizens in the several States who have shown -so great a tenacity to the preservation of those rights and liberties -they secured to themselves by an arduous, persevering, and successful -conflict. - -I have hopes that the States will be reconciled to this disappointment, -in consequence of such procedure. - -A great variety of arguments might be urged in favor of the motion; but -I shall rest it here, and not trespass any further upon the patience of -the House. - -Mr. _Madison_ was just going to move to refer these amendments, in order -that they might be considered in the fullest manner; but it would be -very inconvenient to have them made up into one report, or all of them -discussed at the present time. - -Mr. _Vining_ had no objection to the bringing them forward in the -fullest point of view; but his objection arose from the informality -attending the introduction of the business. - -The order of the House was to refer the report of the committee of -eleven to a Committee of the Whole, and therefore it was improper to -propose any thing additional. - -A desultory conversation arose on this motion, when Mr. _Vining_ moved -the previous question, in which, being supported by five members, it was -put, and the question was,--Shall the main question, to agree to the -motion, be now put? The yeas and nays being demanded by one-fifth of the -members present, on this last motion, they were taken as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Burke, Coles, Floyd, Gerry, Griffin, Grout, - Hathorn, Livermore, Page, Parker, Van Renssellaer, Sherman, - Stone, Sturgis, Sumter, and Tucker.--16. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Baldwin, Benson, Boudinot, Brown, - Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Foster, Gilman, - Goodhue, Hartley, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, - Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Partridge, Schureman, Scott, - Sedgwick, Seney, Sylvester, Sinnickson, Smith, (of - Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Thatcher, Trumbull, - Vining, Wadsworth, and Wynkoop.--34. - -So the motion was lost. - -A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate had passed -the bill providing for expenses which may attend negotiations or -treaties with the Indian tribes, and the appointment of commissioners -for managing the same, with an amendment, to which they desire the -concurrence of the House. - - -THURSDAY, September 3. - -_Permanent Seat of Government._ - -Mr. _Scott_, agreeably to notice given, moved the following: "That a -permanent residence ought to be fixed for the General Government of the -United States at some convenient place, as near the centre of wealth, -population, and extent of territory, as may be consistent with -convenience to the navigation of the Atlantic Ocean, and having due -regard to the particular situation of the Western country." - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, to take into -consideration the motion presented by Mr. _Scott_, on Thursday last, for -establishing the permanent residence of Congress, Mr. BOUDINOT in the -chair. - -Mr. _Goodhue_.--The motion before the committee I consider too -indefinite for the House to decide upon satisfactorily; I wish, -therefore, to add something which may bring the question to a point. It -is well known that the gentlemen from the Eastward are averse to taking -up this business at this time. Not that the subject was improper for our -discussion, but that the present session is drawing to a period, and -there remains yet much important business to be transacted before the -adjournment; but their opinion being overruled by a late vote of the -House, they have since taken it into consideration, and are now ready -and willing to come to a decision. The Eastern members, with the members -from New York, have agreed to fix a place upon national principles, -without a regard to their own convenience, and have turned their minds -to the banks of the Susquehanna. This is a situation as nearly central -as could be devised, upon some of the principles contained in the -resolution. It is, however, supposed to be considerably to the southward -of the centre of the population. Motives of convenience would have led -us to fix upon the banks of the Delaware, but it was supposed it would -give more lasting content to go further south. They were, therefore, -unitedly of opinion, that the banks of the river Susquehanna should be -the place of the permanent residence of the General Government; and that -until suitable buildings could be there erected for accommodation, they -should remain in the city of New York. Agreeably to these ideas, I move -the following resolution: - - _Resolved_, That the permanent seat of the General - Government ought to be in some convenient place on the east - bank of the river Susquehanna, in the State of - Pennsylvania; and that until the necessary buildings be - erected for the purpose, the seat of Government ought to - continue at the city of New York. - -Mr. STONE said, it ought to be "Government of the United States," -instead of General Government. - -Mr. LEE.--The House are now called upon to deliberate on a great -national question; and I hope they will discuss and decide it with that -dispassionate deliberation which the magnitude of the subject requires. -I hope they will be guided in this discussion and decision, by the great -principles on which the Government is founded. I have, with a view, -therefore, of bringing them before a committee, drawn up a preamble, -which recognizes them, in the words following: - - Whereas the people of the United States have assented to - and ratified a constitution for their Government, to - provide for their defence against foreign danger, to secure - their perpetual union and domestic tranquillity, and to - promote their common interests; and all these great objects - will be the best effected by establishing the seat of - Government in a station as nearly central as a convenient - water communication with the Atlantic Ocean, and an easy - access to the Western Territory will permit; and as it will - be satisfactory to the people of the United States, and - give them a firm confidence in the justice and wisdom of - their Government, to be assured that such a station is - already in the contemplation of Congress; and that proper - measures will be taken to ascertain it, and to provide the - necessary accommodations, as soon as the indispensable - arrangements for carrying into effect the constitution can - be made, and the circumstances of the United States will - permit; - - _Resolved_, That a place, as nearly central as a convenient - communication with the Atlantic Ocean, and an easy access - to the Western Territory, will permit, ought to be selected - and established as the permanent seat of the Government of - the United States. - -I wish the principles to be recognized, that the people of the United -States may be able to judge whether, in the measures about to be -adopted, they are carried into execution by this House. If these great -principles are not observed, it will be an unhappy fulfilment of those -predictions which have been made by the opponents of the constitution; -that the general interest of America would not be consulted; that -partial measures would be pursued; and that, instead of being influenced -by a general policy, directed to the good of the whole, one part of the -Union would be depressed and trampled on, to benefit and exalt the -other. Instead of accomplishing and realizing those bright prospects -which shone upon us in the dawn of our Government, and for which our -patriots fought and bled, we shall find the whole to be a visionary -fancy. I flatter myself, that before the House decides on the question -before them, those principles will be recognized, if it is meant they -shall be regarded. - -Mr. CARROL seconded Mr. LEE'S motion. - -Mr. SHERMAN said, if they were both adopted, or blended together, they -would only amount to a preamble, and determine nothing. He thought the -first preamble the best, inasmuch as it stated the principles simply and -concisely. - -Mr. HARTLEY.--Several places have been mentioned, and some have been -offered to Congress as proper situations for the Federal Government. -Many persons wish it seated on the banks of the Delaware, many on the -banks of the Potomac. I consider this as the middle ground between the -two extremes. It will suit the inhabitants to the north better than the -Potomac could, and the inhabitants to the south better than the Delaware -would. From this consideration, I am induced to believe, it will be a -situation more accommodating and agreeable than any other. Respecting -its communication with the Western Territory, no doubt but the -Susquehanna will facilitate that object with considerable ease and great -advantage; and as to its convenience to the navigation of the Atlantic -Ocean, the distance is nothing more than to afford safety from any -hostile attempt, while it affords a short and easy communication with -navigable rivers and large commercial towns. Nay, its intercourse may be -without land carriage, if proper measures are pursued to open the -navigation to the Delaware and Chesapeake. Perhaps, as the present -question is only intended to be on general principles, it may be -improper to be more minute than the honorable mover has been; but I -think it would be better to come to the point at once, and fix the -precise spot, if we could. With this view, I mention Wright's Ferry, on -the Susquehanna. Not, however, that the House should decide upon it, -until they have ascertained its advantages, which will, perhaps, come -more properly forward when the question on the preamble is determined. - -Mr. THATCHER was against a preamble being prefixed to the resolution of -the committee, because the House had, on every occasion when preambles -were brought forward, rejected them. He thought this a prudent conduct, -because it avoided embarrassments. He observed, that it was not -unfrequently the case that the preambles occasioned more difficulty in -understanding the laws than the most intricate part of the laws -themselves; and, therefore, the committee would act wisely to reject -such trammels. He conceived, moreover, that the motion was out of order, -as it was a substitute for one before the committee. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) looked upon the motion as a preamble to a -preamble, both of which he conceived unnecessary; nay, he doubted the -truth of some of the assertions. So far from cementing the Union, by a -measure of the kind in contemplation, he rather feared it would have a -tendency to rend the Union in two; for which reason he was against -adopting it. - -Mr. TUCKER wished the proposition might lie on the table, to give -gentlemen time to consider it. - -Mr. LEE conceived it proper to adopt the preamble as a guide to their -decision. No gentlemen pretended to say it contained improper -principles. As to the whole being a preamble to a preamble, he did not -conceive that to be the case, because the resolution, subsequent to the -preamble, decided, that Congress should select a place for their -permanent residence. He did not conceive how gentlemen could refuse -their assent to a self-evident proposition. He thought such conduct -would give an alarm to the inhabitants of the United States; it amounted -to a declaration, that, on this important question, they would not be -governed by principles founded on rectitude and good policy. - -Mr. MADISON.--I cannot, Mr. Chairman, discover why the opposition to my -colleague's preamble is so strenuous. Is it contended to be out of -order? I submit that to the decision of the Chair. Does it contain any -thing which is not true? I appeal, on that point, to the candid judgment -of the committee. Are the truths in it applicable to the great object we -are about to decide? I appeal to the justice and policy of the people of -the United States. - -I flatter myself the Chair will decide with me, that the proposition is -strictly in order; that the committee will agree, that its contents are -substantial truths; and the whole world, that they are applicable to the -important point now under consideration. - -It declares the principles which ought to govern our decision on this -question, and will, therefore, stand properly prefixed to the motion -offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GOODHUE.) By it we -declare our sentiments, and engage to conform to them, in fixing upon a -seat for the residence of Congress. Is there any thing improper or -unwise in this determination? An honorable gentleman near me (Mr. -TUCKER) says, that he feels himself embarrassed on this occasion; that -the propositions are a bandage over his eyes, to lead him blindfolded to -an object he cannot tell what. I must beg leave to differ from him. They -appear to me to contain those luminous truths which ought to guide him -through his embarrassment to the object which I am sure his justice and -patriotism are in pursuit of. I hope, therefore, he will agree with us -in adopting the motion, unless something more essential is offered -against it. - -Mr. SHERMAN.--The resolution connected with the preamble contains a -proposition which, I think, ought not to be adopted. It selects a place, -having a convenient water-communication with the Atlantic. Now, it may -be just and expedient to fix upon a place at some distance from a -navigable river, therefore it may not agree with the intention of the -committee. As to the principles which are to guide our decisions, they -are as well expressed in the propositions of the gentleman from -Pennsylvania as in the substitute, and as free from ambiguity. - -The question on Mr. LEE'S motion was taken, and determined in the -negative; yeas 17, nays 34. - -Mr. TUCKER declared, that the majority for fixing upon any set of -principles whatever, could not govern his mind with regard to the fact. -If, on the whole, he did not think that place best, which the principles -adopted seemed to lead to, he certainly could not vote for it. Of what -use, then, was it to establish principles which could not govern the -conduct of the House? But the principles offered are vague, and lead to -no certain conclusion. What is the centre of wealth, population, and -territory? Is there a common centre? Territory has one centre, -population another, and wealth a third. Now, is it intended to determine -a centre from these three centres? This was not a practicable mode of -settling the place; and it was to be doubted whether the centre of -wealth ought at all to be considered. The centre of population is -variable, and a decision on that principle now, might establish the seat -of Government at a very inconvenient place to the next generation. The -centre of territory may be ascertained, but that will lead to a -situation entirely ineligible; consequently, whether these centres were -considered separately or together, they furnish no satisfactory -direction, no possible guide to the committee. The only way, then, to -come at a result yielding satisfaction, would be to consider the several -places to be proposed, according to their merits; and this would be done -by gentlemen in the course of the business. He was, therefore, against -settling any principles by vote. - -Mr. MADISON.--I move to strike out the word wealth, because I do not -conceive this to be a consideration that ought to have much weight in -determining the place where the seat of Government ought to be. The two -other principles, I admit, are such as ought to have their influence; -but why wealth should is not so clear. Government is intended for the -accommodation of the citizens at large; an equal facility to communicate -with Government is due to all ranks; whether to transmit their -grievances or requests, or to receive those blessings which the -Government is intended to dispense. The rich are certainly not less able -than those who are indigent to resort to the seat of Government, or to -establish the means necessary for receiving those advantages to which, -as citizens, they are entitled. - -I should rather suppose, if any distinctions are to be made, or superior -advantages to be enjoyed from the presence of the Government, that the -Government ought rather to move toward those who are the least able to -move toward it, and who stand most in need of its protection. - -The question on this motion was taken, and passed in the negative; yeas -22, nays 28. - -The question on Mr. SCOTT'S motion was then taken, and adopted; yeas 32, -nays 18. - -Mr. GOODHUE'S motion was now taken into consideration. - -Mr. LEE hoped that gentlemen would show how the banks of the Susquehanna -conformed with the principles laid down in the resolution adopted by the -House; how it communicated with the navigation of the Atlantic, and how -it was connected with the Western Territory. He hoped they would also -point out its other advantages, respecting salubrity of air and -fertility of soil. He expected all these advantages ought to be combined -in the place of the residence of the Federal Government, and every other -requisite to cement the common interest of America. - -Mr. Hartley wished some gentleman had risen to satisfy the inquiries of -the honorable member, who could have given a description of the -advantages of that situation in better language than himself. But as no -gentleman had offered to undertake the subject, he thought himself bound -to make him an answer; and he trusted, in doing this, he should clearly -show that all the advantages contemplated would result from adopting the -motion. But he wished it had extended further, and selected the place -most convenient on the banks of the Susquehanna, as then the answer -would be more pointed and decisive. He had already mentioned Wright's -Ferry, and would consider that as the proper spot. Now, Wright's Ferry -lies on the east bank of the Susquehanna, about thirty-five miles from -navigable water; and, from a few miles above, is navigable to the source -of the river, at Lake Otsego, in the upper part of the State of New -York. The Tioga branch is navigable a very considerable distance up, and -is but a few miles from the Genesee, which empties into Lake Ontario. -The Juniata is navigable, and nearly connects with the Kisskemanetas, -and that with the Ohio; besides the West Branch connects with the -Alleghany River; forming a communication with the distant parts even of -Kentucky, with very little land carriage. The great body of water in -that river renders it navigable at all seasons of the year. With respect -to the settlements in the neighborhood of Wright's Ferry, he would -venture to assert it was as thickly inhabited as any part of the country -in North America. As to the quality of the soil, it was inferior to none -in the world, and though that was saying a good deal, it was not more -than he believed a fact. In short, from all the information he had -acquired, and that was not inconsiderable, he ventured to pronounce, -that in point of soil, water, and the advantages of nature, there was no -part of the country superior. And if honorable gentlemen were disposed -to pay much attention to a dish of fish, he could assure them their -table might be furnished with fine and good from the waters of the -Susquehanna; perhaps not in such variety as in this city, but the -deficiency was well made up in the abundance which liberal nature -presented them of her various products. It was in the neighborhood of -two large and populous towns, one of them the largest inland town in -America. Added to all these advantages, it possessed that of centrality, -perhaps, in a superior degree to any which could be proposed. - -Mr. LEE asked the gentleman what was the distance of Wright's Ferry from -Yorktown, and whether that town, as it had once accommodated Congress, -could do it again? If a permanent seat is established, why not go to it -immediately? And why, let me ask, shall we go and fix upon the banks of -a rapid river, when we can have a more healthful situation? And here he -would inquire if the Codorus Creek, which runs through Yorktown into the -Susquehanna, was, or could be made navigable? - -Mr. HARTLEY answered, that Yorktown was ten miles from the Ferry, that -it contained about five hundred houses, besides a number of large and -ornamental public buildings; that there was no doubt, but if Congress -deemed it expedient to remove immediately there, they could be -conveniently accommodated; but as gentlemen appeared to be inclined to -fix the permanent residence on the east banks of the Susquehanna, he was -very well satisfied it should be there. - -Mr. MADISON.--The gentleman who brought forward this motion was candid -enough to tell us, that measures have been preconcerted out of doors, -and that the point was determined; that more than half the territory of -the United States, and nearly half its inhabitants have been disposed -of, not only without their consent, but without their knowledge. After -this, I hope the gentleman will extend his candor so much further, as to -show that the general principles now to be established are applicable to -their determination, in order that we may reconcile this fate to our own -minds, and submit to it with some degree of complacency. - -I hope, if the seat of Government is to be at or near the centre of -wealth, population, and extent of territory, that gentlemen will show -that the permanent seat there proposed is near the permanent centre of -wealth, population and extent of territory, and the temporary seat, near -the temporary centre. I think we may, with good reason, call upon -gentlemen for an explanation on these points, in order that we may know -the ground on which the great question is decided, and be able to assign -to our constituents satisfactory reasons for what some of them may -consider a sacrifice of their interest, and be instrumental in -reconciling them, as far as possible, to their destiny. - -Mr. GOODHUE thought the question, stated by the gentleman from Virginia, -was proper to be asked, and proper to be answered. The gentlemen from -the eastward, as he said before, were in favor of the Susquehanna; that -in contemplating the geographical centre of territory, they found the -banks of that river to be near the place. In point of population, they -considered the Susquehanna was south of that centre; but, from a spirit -of conciliation, they were inclined to go there, although the principle -and their own convenience would not lead them beyond the banks of the -Delaware. He believed the centre of population would not vary -considerably for ages yet to come, because he supposed it would -constantly incline more toward the Eastern, and manufacturing States, -than toward the Southern, and agricultural ones. - -Mr. JACKSON.--I was originally opposed to the question coming forward, -and am so still. I thought the subject ought not to be touched till the -States, who have not yet acceded to the Union, might have an opportunity -of giving their voice. I agree with the gentleman from Virginia. I am -sorry that the people should learn that this matter has been -precipitated; that they should learn, that the members from New England -and New York had fixed on a seat of Government for the United States. -This is not proper language to go out to freemen. Jealousies have -already gone abroad. This language will blow the coals of sedition, and -endanger the Union. I would ask, if the other members of the Union are -not also to be consulted? Are the eastern members to dictate in this -business, and fix the seat of Government of the United States? Why not -also fix the principles of Government? Why not come forward, and demand -of us the power of Legislation, and say, give us up your privileges, and -we will govern you? If one part has the power to fix the seat of -Government, they may as well take the Government from the other. This -looks like aristocracy: not the united, but the partial voice of America -is to decide. How can gentlemen answer for this, who call themselves -representatives, on the broad basis of national interest? - -I deny the fact of the territorial centrality of the place proposed. -From New York, to the nearest part of the province of Maine, it is two -hundred and fifty miles; and from New York, to the nearest part of the -upper district of Georgia, from which my colleague, General Matthews, -comes, is eleven hundred miles; and from the proposed place on the -Susquehanna, it is four hundred miles to the nearest part of Maine, and -nine hundred to the nearest part of that district; the proportion is -more than two to one. But the gentlemen should have an eye to the -population of Georgia; one of the finest countries in the world cannot -but rapidly extend her population; nothing but her being harassed by the -inroads of savages has checked her amazing increase, which must, under -the auspices of peace and safety, people her western regions. Georgia -will soon be as populous as any State in the Union. Calculations ought -not to be made on its present situation. - -North Carolina is not yet in the Union, and perhaps the place may give -umbrage to her, which ought, at this moment, to be cautiously avoided. -I should, therefore, think it most advisable to postpone the decision -for this session at least. But, if we are to decide, I own, I think the -Potomac a better situation than the Susquehanna, and I hope it will be -selected for that purpose. - -Mr. GOODHUE.--If gentlemen examine this subject with candor, they will -find that the banks of the Susquehanna are as near the geographical -centre as can be fixed upon. It is from the extreme of the Province of -Maine about seven hundred and sixty miles; to Savannah, in Georgia, -about seven hundred and sixty; and about seven hundred and thirty, or -seven hundred and forty, from Kentucky; so that it is rather south of -the centre of territory. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--When this subject was under discussion some time since, -it appeared to be the wish of gentlemen from the eastward, and of the -members from this State, that the question should not now be decided. -They urged several reasons why it would be improper. I thought those -reasons weighty, and was for postponing the consideration till our next -meeting. But it was answered, that the business was important; that the -citizens of the United States were uneasy and anxious; that as factions -did not now exist, it was the proper time to decide the question. What -was the representation to do? Was it not necessary for them to consult, -and fix upon a proper place? - -They are, in a degree, disinterested, because they have no expectation -that the seat of Government will be fixed in any of the Eastern States. -On the other hand, there is a well-grounded expectation, that it will be -fixed either in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, or Jersey. We are -called on to determine a question in which we conceive ourselves -unbiased, and shall decide it on those principles that will reflect -honor on the House. I trust it will be found that we have fixed on those -principles, and that this resolution will be confirmed by Congress. We -do not decide for the Union, nor for the Southern States, we decide for -ourselves; and if our reasons are substantial, I trust that gentlemen -will meet us in the determination. - -There are several principles which have been agreed to in the general -resolution; and I believe it will be shown, with exactness, that the -place proposed will come within these principles. The first respects -population. Is the House to consider the present, or the expected -population? The resolution has a determinate meaning; it speaks of the -population at the present period; and to calculate on this principle no -gentleman can say is unjust. The representation in this House is itself -a demonstration of it. The population of this country may be pretty -safely determined by the proportion of representatives in this House; -for it is established on this ground. I therefore believe, that the -principle of population inclines to this place, in preference to a more -southern situation. - -But, in taking the principle of territory, are the House to calculate on -the uninhabited wilderness? Shall they take the Lake of the Woods on one -side, and the Missouri on the other, and find a geographical centre? If -so, to what an extent must they go? The inhabited and populated part of -the country ought chiefly to be considered. If St. Croix is taken as the -eastern limit, and St. Mary as the southern, the centre of the line will -be found to fall pretty near the Susquehanna. - -Mr. SEDGWICK.--I beg leave to ask, if there really is any impropriety in -gentlemen's consulting together, who have a uniformity of interest, upon -a question which has been said to be of such infinite importance? My -colleague has barely stated that such a consultation has taken place, -and that, in consequence of it, men's minds have been induced to run in -a current. Is there any thing wrong in this? Let those, then, who are -determined not to consult, nor have any communication on such a subject, -decide for themselves. I should think myself lost to that regard I owe -to my country, and to my immediate constituents in particular, should I -abstract myself from the contemplation of the benefits that would flow -from knowing the feelings and sentiments of those with whom I am to act. -Instead of being an evidence to that aristocratic spirit which has been -mentioned, it is only a proof that men, attentive to their business, had -preferred that way, which every honest man had in view. I have -contemplated the subject with great anxiety, and though I cannot declare -that my local situation has had no influence on my mind, yet I will say -I endeavored to prevent its having any. I believe that the true -interests of the country will be best answered by taking a position -eastward and northward of the Susquehanna. - -The Delaware is one extreme, the Potomac another; but when I reflect how -anxious some gentlemen are for the one, and some for the other, I am -willing to accommodate both parties, by advancing to a middle ground, to -which I hope the public mind will be reconciled. I was also influenced -in fixing this opinion, by the sentiment of the celebrated Montesquieu. -He had laid it down, that in a country partaking of northern and -southern interests, of a poor and productive soil, the centre and the -influence of Government ought to incline to that part where the former -circumstances prevailed; because necessity stimulates to industry, -produces good habits and a surplus of labor; because such parts are the -nurseries of soldiers and sailors, and the sources of that energy which -is the best security of the Government. - -The Susquehanna is, in my opinion, south-west of the centre of wealth, -population, and resources of every kind. I would beg leave, gentlemen, -to suggest another idea. In my view, on the principles of population, -the Susquehanna is far beyond the centre; for I do not think it just, -on this subject, to take the constitutional computation. Will any -gentlemen pretend, that men, who are merely the subject of property or -wealth, should be taken into the estimate; that the slaves of the -country, men who have no rights to protect, (being deprived of them -all,) should be taken into view, in determining the centre of -Government? If they were considered, gentlemen might as well estimate -the black cattle of New England. - -I would ask, if it is of no importance to take a position in which the -credit of the Government may procure those supplies that its necessities -might require? Will the strength and riches of the country be to the -north or to the south of the Susquehanna? Certainly to the north. - -It is the opinion of all the Eastern States, that the climate of the -Potomac is not only unhealthy, but destructive to northern -constitutions. It is of importance to attend to this, for whether it be -true or false, such are the public prepossessions. Vast numbers of -Eastern adventures have gone to the Southern States, and all have found -their graves there; they have met destruction as soon as they arrived. -These accounts have been spread, and filled the Northern people with -apprehension. - -Mr. VINING.--Although I must acknowledge myself a party to the bargain, -yet I had no share in making it. It is to me an unexpected bargain. -Though the interest of the State which I have the honor to represent is -involved in it, I am yet to learn of the committee, whether Congress are -to tickle the trout on the stream of the Codorus, to build their -sumptuous palaces on the banks of the Potomac, or to admire commerce -with her expanded wings, on the waters of the Delaware. I have, on this -occasion, educated my mind to impartiality, and have endeavored to -chastise its prejudices. - -I confess to the House, and to the world, that, viewing this subject, -with all its circumstances, I am in favor of the Potomac. I wish the -seat of Government to be fixed there; because I think the interest, the -honor, and the greatness of this country require it. I look on it as the -centre from which those streams are to flow that are to animate and -invigorate the body politic. From thence, it appears to me, the rays of -Government will most naturally diverge to the extremities of the Union. -I declare, that I look on the Western Territory in an awful and striking -point of view. To that region the unpolished sons of earth are flowing -from all quarters; men, to whom the protection of the laws, and the -controlling force of the Government, are equally necessary. From this -great consideration, I conclude that the banks of the Potomac are the -proper station. - -Mr. SENEY mentioned Peach Bottom, on the Susquehanna, about fifteen -miles above tide-water, as the proper place. - -Mr. GOODHUE did not wish the particular spot pointed out, because some -inconvenience would result from such a measure; however, he was free to -declare, that his own idea was in favor of a situation near Wright's -Ferry. - -Mr. HEISTER moved to insert Harrisburg in the resolution. He conceived -the spot to be more eligible than any yet mentioned; from hence there -was an uninterrupted navigation to the sources of the river, and through -this place runs the great Western road leading to Fort Pitt, and the -Western Territory. A water communication can be effected at small -expense with Philadelphia. The waters of the Swetara, a branch of the -Susquehanna, about eight miles below Harrisburg, run to the north-east, -and are navigable fifteen miles from thence to the Tulpehoken, a branch -of the Schuylkill; a canal may be cut across, of about a mile and a -half, the ground has been actually surveyed, and found practicable; this -will unite the Susquehanna and Delaware, and open a passage for the -produce of an immense tract of country. It is but little further from -Philadelphia than is Wright's Ferry; and, on many accounts, he thought -it a preferable situation for the permanent seat of Government. - -Mr. MADISON meant to pay due attention to every argument that could be -urged on this important question. Facts had been asserted, the -impressions of which he wished to be erased, if they were not well -founded. It has been said, that the communication with the Western -Territory, by the Susquehanna, is more convenient than by the Potomac. I -apprehend this is not the case; and the propriety of our decision will -depend, in a great measure, on the superior advantages of one of these -two streams. It is agreed, on all hands, that we ought to have some -regard to the convenience of the Atlantic navigation. Now, to embrace -this object, a position must be taken on some navigable river; to favor -the communication with the Western Territory, its arms ought likewise to -extend themselves towards that region. I did not suppose it would have -been necessary to bring forward charts and maps, as has been done by -others, to show the committee the comparative situation of those rivers. -I flattered myself it was sufficiently understood, to enable us to -decide the question of superiority; but I am now inclined to believe, -that gentlemen have embraced an error, and I hope they are not -determined to vote under improper impressions. I venture to pledge -myself for the demonstration, that the communication with the Western -Territory, by the Potomac, is more certain and convenient than the -other. And if the question is as important as it is admitted to be, -gentlemen will not shut their ears to information; they will not -precipitate the decision; or if they regard the satisfaction of our -constituents, they will allow them to be informed of all the facts and -arguments that lead to the decision of a question in which the general -and particular interests of all parts of the Union are involved. - -Mr. STONE found gentlemen had determined on a step that was not -generally liked; he wished, therefore, the committee to rise, and give -all of them an opportunity of trying to mend the bargain that had been -made; perhaps they might find, upon reflection, that they ought to -decide the question on more national principles than they seemed yet to -be governed by. - -Mr. SENEY could not say how far the motion was agreeable to every part -of America; but he believed it would be acceptable to a very -considerable part of the State he had the honor to represent. - -Mr. SUMTER was in favor of the committee's rising, in order to give -gentlemen time to ascertain the facts necessary to guide them to a -decision. There was one impropriety which struck him forcibly; the -resolution adopted as a principle that the seat of Government ought to -be in a convenient place for the navigation of the Atlantic Ocean. But -the situation mentioned in the resolution under consideration had no -communication whatever with the Atlantic navigation. It had been said, -that the Susquehanna afforded the most convenient communication with the -Western Territory. He believed the Hudson possessed superior advantages; -it connected with the country about the Lakes and the Ohio. From New -York to Albany was navigable; from thence to Schenectady, there was a -short portage; after ascending Schenectady, there was a short portage of -half a mile to the Mohawk; from thence, another short portage to Wood -Creek, and thence into Lake Ontario, which connects with Lake Erie; and -from thence are portages to the Wabash, Miami, Muskingum or Alleghany, -all falling into the Ohio. But the Potomac possessed advantages superior -to these; and was, both on account of communicating with the Atlantic -and Western Territory, much to be preferred to the Susquehanna. He -assured gentlemen that he was unbiased in giving a preference to the -Potomac; because, if he studied his own convenience, he should consider -New York as more eligible than either. It accommodated the Atlantic -navigation in a superior manner, and had its pretensions to a connection -with the Western waters, as he had already shown. He hoped, however, -that the subject would be debated with candor and good temper, and -decided in the way most likely to promote the general interests and -harmony of the Union. - -Mr. SHERMAN was against taking up the subject so soon; but since it had -been determined against him,--gentlemen, he presumed, had endeavored to -make up their minds,--he had turned his attention to it, and was now -prepared to decide. - -Mr. CLYMER knew the advantages possessed by the Susquehanna in -communicating with the Western country; they were mentioned by his -colleague; but, with the additional circumstance that the Juniata branch -afforded a convenient navigation to a road lately laid out by the State -of Pennsylvania, which connected with the Kisskaminetas, from whence was -a short voyage down the Alleghany, and shorter still down that to the -Ohio, at Pittsburg. He questioned much if the navigation by the Potomac -was so convenient. - -Mr. STONE did not mean to govern his vote on this occasion by what was -said to be the sense of the citizens of Maryland; because they were, he -apprehended, divided in opinion. One part or the other would be -particularly benefited, as the seat of Government should be fixed either -on the Susquehanna or Potomac, because those rivers watered its -territory. Perhaps the majority of the present inhabitants would prefer -the Susquehanna; but as their settlements extended westward, and the -population increased, the majority would be favored by the Potomac. - -Mr. SENEY did not mean to determine this question on the principle of -benefiting, exclusively, the citizens of Maryland; he considered himself -as a Representative of the Union, and should decide on the principle of -general convenience. - -Mr. TUCKER hoped the committee would rise, in order to give gentlemen -time to consider the subject maturely, and to prepare themselves to come -forward and discuss, fairly and fully, the advantages and disadvantages -of the rival places. He could not believe they meant to decide a -question of this importance on the superficial discussion which had -taken place. - -The question, on the committee's rising, was now put, and it passed in -the negative; for it 23, against it 27. - -Mr. STONE.--We are called upon, sir, to determine a question that has -not been introduced to our notice more than two hours and a half; a -question too, as admitted on both sides, of the highest importance to -the interests and harmony of the Union. I cannot help thinking it a -hardship to be compelled so abruptly to a decision; but since it must be -the case, I shall take the liberty of suggesting a few of my thoughts, -in order to justify the vote I mean to give. - -There are a variety of considerations and doubts in my mind, respecting -the two rivers that have been mentioned. These doubts are increased when -a particular place is named upon one of them; but had gentlemen told us, -that they had settled this point also, it might have precluded any sort -of debate whatever; because when an agreement had taken place, not only -as to the banks of the Susquehanna, but as to the favored spot on those -banks, we should not have entertained a single hope that we could have -changed the position. But, as gentlemen differ among themselves on this -point, perhaps they will permit us to participate with them in selecting -the place most likely to give general satisfaction. But how can they -suppose we are prepared on this head, without a general consideration of -all the places which may offer themselves along the east bank of the -river. - -I am not apprised, sir, of the extent of this continent certainly, -because I never calculated it by figures, or measured it on the map; but -if there is the smallest degree of accuracy in the draft that has been -handed about, no man, who takes a view of it, in my opinion, will doubt -a single moment, whether the Susquehanna is the river, which nearly -equally divides the territory of the United States, in its extent north -and south, that separates, in equal parts, the country east and west. -The eastern part, I take it, is little, if any thing, more than half as -large as what lies west. We observe that the course of the main branch -tends more toward the Atlantic Ocean, than it does toward the Western -Territory; but even its western inclination goes only toward the lakes -Erie and Ontario, through the middle of which runs the boundary line of -the United States. How can this, then, be supposed a direct or -convenient communication with that part of the country which is usually -termed, and is in fact, the Western Territory? - -In fixing the permanent residence, we ought not only to have in view the -immediate importance of the States, but also what is likely to be their -weight at a future day; not that we should consider a visionary -importance, or chimerical expectation, but such a one as can be -demonstrated with as much certainty as effects follow their causes. I -apprehend the increase of population to the eastward is merely -conditional; there is nothing to invite people to settle in the northern -parts of this continent, in preference to the southern; even if they -were settled there, every principle which encourages population would -operate to induce them to emigrate to the southern and western parts. We -know the northern climate is severe, the winters long, and summers -short, and that the soil is less fertile. Were we not assuredly -acquainted that this was the case on the continent of America, we should -be led to the same conclusion, by reasoning from our knowledge of the -other parts of the globe. Men multiply in proportion to the means of -support, and this is more abundant in a mild than a severe climate. -Hence, I infer, that the climate, and means of subsistence, will ever -operate as a stimulus to promote the population of the Southern, in -preference to the Northern States. This doctrine is daily exemplified. -If we advert to the situation of that part of the Western country, -called Kentucky, and compare its increase of population since the war, -with any part of the Eastern States, we shall find men multiplied there -beyond any thing known in America; and if we consider its natural -advantages, we shall conclude it will be an important part of the Union. -The river which has been mentioned by the southern gentlemen is, as far -as I am acquainted, extremely well calculated to furnish Government with -the key of that country; and a river, I believe, richer in its exports -than any I have contemplated on the face of the earth. - -A call was now made to order, and Mr. STONE sat down. A desultory -conversation took place on the point of order. It was contended, that -the question was on the insertion of Harrisburg, in the proposition -offered by Mr. GOODHUE; whereas Mr. STONE was speaking to the main -question. - -Messrs. CARROLL, LEE and MADISON insisted that Mr. STONE was in order, -inasmuch as Mr. HEISTER'S motion necessarily involved the main question, -and was inseparable from it. - -But it was decided by the Chair to be out of order; whereupon the -question was taken, without further debate, on inserting Harrisburg, and -it was determined in the negative. - -The main question being now before the committee, - -Mr. STONE proceeded. I feel myself unhappy to be obliged to address -gentlemen, who are not disposed to attend to any thing I may say; but as -gentlemen have chosen this time for discussing the subject, they will -not think it improper in me to persist in detailing my ideas. When I was -interrupted by the call to order, I was about to show the importance of -the Potomac to the United States. Its waters afford a practical, safe, -and short communication with the Ohio and Mississippi, beyond comparison -preferable to the Susquehanna. If it is intended that the people settled -upon those great rivers should communicate with the General Government, -after ascending the former they must proceed a vast distance northward, -up the Alleghany, against a rapid stream, before they can reach the -Susquehanna. I am inclined to believe a land-carriage would be better -than such a laborious round-about water communication. Now the Potomac, -as I am informed, connects with the Youghiogheny, a river less rapid -than the Alleghany, and is itself communicable with the Atlantic. In -this case, the Potomac will be the highway for such vast quantities of -wealth as to give every superiority; and, however we may determine at -this day, it will not be long before the seat of Government must be -carried thither. The vast population that is extending itself through -the Western country requires that the Government should take a position -favorable to its convenience; because new settlements at a vast distance -from the old are more exposed to temptation than others; but in the -present case, it is proper for us to guard against the operation of a -foreign country, which seems to be forming settlements near our -frontiers to rival ours. It may be the more necessary, inasmuch as we -ought to keep the boundary line distinct between the Spaniards and -savages, as I fear, do what we will, we run the greatest risk of -entering into a quarrel with them; for, it is well known, that -emigrants, in forming new settlements, are not much concerned about an -ascertainment of jurisdiction; they are generally bold, enterprising -spirits, who feel some aversion to strict government; it is therefore -necessary that the Government should approach toward them, and be placed -in such situation as would give it the greatest possible influence over -them. Beside their contiguity to a rival nation, they are independent in -their condition; they want hardly any thing this country can give; their -soil is rich and fertile; their exports will furnish them with every -foreign article from the southward which they can require. Their -interests are more strongly connected with the Southern States than the -Southern States are with the Eastern. The advantages of this Government -are felt, in a peculiar manner, by the mercantile and commercial States; -the agricultural States have not the same strong reasons for maintaining -the Union. Hence we may apprehend that the Western country may be -inclined, as it advances its importance, to drop off. The Susquehanna is -no bond by which to hold them; its direction is more northern than -westerly. Upon the whole, I am inclined to believe that it would not -give general satisfaction at the present day; and the inequality would -daily grow more striking, until we should be compelled to remove again -to where there was a probability of finding a centre of territory as -well as population. I have thrown out these ideas in a crude manner, but -gentlemen have forced me to it by their urgency to take the question; I -could wish to be allowed time for further discussion, and I believe it -would be no ill sacrifice of a day, if we were to put off the -determination till to-morrow. - -Mr. LEE observed, that since gentlemen would not admit of a moment's -delay; since they seemed to declare, that they had settled the matter -without giving an opportunity for full discussion; since the House were -hurried to a decision on a point that involved the welfare of the -community, duty to his country, duty to the better half of the territory -of the United States, called on him to come forward with another -proposition. - -He then moved to strike out the words "east bank of the Susquehanna," -and to insert a clause to this effect; that, whereas the banks of the -Potomac united all the aforesaid advantages, with fertility of soil, -salubrity of climate, &c. Resolved, That the permanent seat of -Government ought to be fixed somewhere on the banks of the said river. - -He flattered himself that these two rival places would be considered -with an attention that would do honor to the House; that their several -advantages would be fully compared, and that such a decision would -result as would be for the lasting benefit of the United States. - -He then stated at large the comparative advantages of the Potomac; its -great and increasing improvements; the extent of its navigation; its -direct communication with the Western country, and its easy -communication with the Eastern and Southern States. - -The House, he said, were now to determine whether regard was to be had -to the people of the Western Territory, to the greater portion of the -territory of the Union; in point of climate, it was extremely -salubrious; in fertility of soil, it was exceeded by no country on -earth. Thither would emigrants flock from all quarters. - -He asked whether this Government was intended for a temporary or a -lasting one? Whether it was to be a fleeting vision, or to continue for -ages? He hoped the result would proclaim that the Government was -calculated for perpetuity; and that the common interests of the country -had been consulted. If that was done, the Government would be removed to -the Potomac; if not, we should stop short of it; and what would be the -consequence? He said he was averse to sound alarms, or introduce terrors -into the House; but if they were well founded, he thought it his duty. -It was well known with what difficulty the constitution was adopted by -the State of Virginia. It was then said, that there would be -confederacies of the States east of Pennsylvania, which would destroy -the Southern States; that they would unite their councils in discussing -questions relative to their particular interests, and the Southern -States would be disregarded. To these suspicions, it was answered, no! -It was contended that the magnanimous policy, arising from mutual -interests and common dangers would unite all the States, and make them -pursue objects of general good. But if it should be found that there -were such confederacies as were predicted, that the Northern States did -consult their partial interests, and form combinations to support them, -without regarding their Southern brethren, they would be alarmed, and -the faith of all south of the Potomac would be shaken. It would be shown -to them, that what had been predicted by the enemies to the constitution -had come to pass; that the Northern States had not waited till the -Government was organized before they sacrificed the Southern people to -their own interests. - -Let the seat of Government be fixed where it may, Virginia had not -solicited Congress to place the seat of Government in her State. She -only contended, that the interests of the Southern and Western country -should be consulted; and he declared that these interests would be -sacrificed, if Congress fixed upon any place but the Potomac. The -greater part of Virginia was distant from that river. Many parts were -not nearer than New Jersey. She wished not to have the seat on the -Potomac but for the general good; it was not for the benefit of that -State, but for the benefit of the Union. - -Mr. LAWRENCE said, it was improper and unnecessary to hold out terrors -to the fancy of members. The true way to convince them, was to address -their understandings. He was certain there was no dangerous confederacy -which the gentleman had talked of; and believed the conduct of the -Northern States would bear the strictest scrutiny; that, if probed to -the bottom, it would be found fair and candid. He remembered in the -debate upon the Tonnage bill, a gentleman from Virginia observed, that -could the moderate and equal policy of that day's proceedings have been -foreseen in the convention of Virginia, many objections that were there -produced against the constitution would have been thereby obviated. - -He trusted, that, in conducting the business before them, gentlemen -could find no cause, eventually, to entertain different sentiments from -what he then delivered. - -Mr. MADISON.--I acknowledge, that, on a former day, I made the -observation alluded to with singular complacency. I said, I had found a -moderation and liberality prevailing here, which I sincerely believed, -if foreseen in the convention of Virginia, would have obviated a very -powerful objection to the adoption of the Federal constitution. But, -give me leave now to say, that if a Prophet had risen in that body, and -brought the declarations and proceedings of this day into view, that I -as firmly believe Virginia might not have been a part of the Union at -this moment. - -A motion was now made for the committee to rise, and several gentlemen -said, they wished it to prevail, in order that an opportunity might be -afforded for a fuller discussion. - -Mr. SEDGWICK hoped the committee would not rise. Will it be contended, -that the majority shall not govern; and shall the minority, because they -cannot carry their points, accuse the House of want of candor? Are we to -be told, that an important State would not have joined the Union, had -they known what would have been the proceedings of this House. Gentlemen -have brought forward this business themselves; they have precipitated -the House into it. We prayed, we supplicated for time; and now -gentlemen, from some causes not explained, wish to postpone the matter, -in order to have time to deliberate. He believed that a deliberation of -six weeks would not alter a single opinion, and therefore it was not -proper to consume the public time uselessly. - -Mr. MADISON.--When I alluded to the proceedings of this day, I -contemplated the manner in which the business was conducted; and though -I acknowledge that a majority ought to govern, yet they have no -authority to deprive the minority of a constitutional right; they have -no authority to debar us the right of free debate. An important and -interesting question being under consideration, we ought to have time -allowed for its discussion. Facts have been stated on one side, and -members ought to be indulged on the other with an opportunity of -collecting and ascertaining other facts. We have a right to bring -forward all the arguments which we think can, and ought to have an -influence on the decision. It is unusual, on a partial discussion, even -of questions of inferior magnitude, to decide in the course of a single -day. How, then, can gentlemen reconcile their conduct of this day to the -liberality they have hitherto shown? This manner of proceeding would -mark a genius in this body which will contradict the expectations of its -warmest friends. I hope nothing will be fixed by a hasty determination. -I said before, and repeat it again, that I wish to make some -observations on what has been advanced, for which at present there is -not time. But, if there was, I do not wish to address a determined and -silent majority. No, sir, if this be the temper of to-day, let me -appeal to a more favorable temper to-morrow. If gentlemen refuse this -appeal, I must submit; but I will, to the last moment, assert my right, -and remonstrate against a precipitate decision. - -Mr. BURKE observed, that the Northern States had had a fortnight to -manage this matter, and would not now allow the Southern States a day. -What was the conduct of gentlemen? A league has been formed between the -Northern States and Pennsylvania. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS interrupted Mr. BURKE, and denied the assertion, as it -respected Pennsylvania. - -Mr. BURKE then proceeded, and said that the Eastern members had combined -with some other States, he could not positively say which, but the first -information that was furnished was given this morning, every gentleman -had heard it as well as himself, but that had nothing to do with his -object; he wanted time to get information; and called on gentlemen, for -the honor of the House, to comply with this request. - -Mr. WADSWORTH said, he rejoiced to hear the gentlemen calling for time, -and crying out fair play. He remembered when he entreated the gentleman -who spoke last, and others, not to precipitate themselves into this -situation; his entreaties had been of no avail. Knowing that the pride -of a majority was one of those things to which he had to submit, he, -with all the New England members, solicited for time. With respect to -bargaining, he believed that it would reflect no honor on either side of -the House. He said he must either give his vote now, or submit to more -bargaining. He was willing that the whole business of bargaining should -be exposed; he would not excuse himself; he did not dare to go to the -Potomac. He feared that the whole of New England would consider the -Union as destroyed. Since the matter had been so prematurely brought on, -since members had been forced, and, as it were, dragged by the throat to -this business, he hoped it was now finished. - -The question was now put, on the rising of the committee, and carried: -Whereupon the committee rose and reported progress, and then the House -adjourned. - - -THURSDAY, September 4. - -_Seat of Government._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the -Resolution for establishing a permanent Seat of Government, Mr. BOUDINOT -in the chair. - -Mr. STONE wished to hear the sentiments of the gentleman who first -brought forward this business: he expected to derive some advantage from -that gentleman's knowledge of the country, which, he presumed, was -pretty accurate, as it was derived from actual observation. - -After waiting some time, - -Mr. STONE repeated his request, under an apprehension that he had not -the honor of being heard by the worthy gentleman. - -Mr. GOODHUE rose and said, he had given his sentiments yesterday, but, -if the gentleman desired it, he was ready to repeat them. - -Mr. STONE said, he addressed his request to the gentleman from -Pennsylvania. - -Mr. SCOTT.--I understood the gentleman so, and I have no objection to -giving my sentiments on the occasion. The resolution I laid on the table -has been honored with the vote of a majority of the committee. It -contains such principles as, I believe, ought to govern in the -settlement of the grand question: they have declared, that they mean to -be governed by these principles, and this is a declaration to the world -that their hearts are good. What may follow in consequence of that -resolution, cannot impeach the motive, it can only prove, that our heads -are uninformed; an error of the head is pardonable, but an error of the -heart is not easily forgiven. - -Whether the spot which has been moved is the right spot or not, seems to -be the matter under inquiry. I had prepared myself with documents, which -I should have produced had they been needed, to prove, that the State I -have the honor to represent involves, within its limits the centre of -wealth and population of the United States, taking the sea-coast for a -guide; for all that has been said of the importance of the Western -country, has not prevailed on me to imagine, that all the vacant -territory should be taken into view, the same as the settled and -cultivated parts; my resolution had no other idea but that the Atlantic -States should consent to go as near that territory as their convenience -would allow. I am convinced that going further than would suit the -Atlantic States would injure the Western country itself. - -Mr. MADISON said, if this delay should not have produced any alteration -in the sentiments of the gentlemen, it will at least soften that hard -decision which seems to threaten the friends of the Potomac. He hoped -that all would concur in the great principle on which they ought to -conduct and decide this business; an equal attention to the rights of -the community. No government, he said, not even the most despotic, -could, beyond a certain point, violate that idea of justice and equal -right which prevailed in the mind of the community. In Republican -Governments, justice and equality form the basis of the system; and -perhaps the structure can rest on no other that the wisdom of man can -devise. In a Federal Republic, give me leave to say, it is even more -necessary and proper, that a sacred regard should be paid to these -considerations. For beyond the sense of the community at large, which -has its full agency in such a system, no such Government can act with -safety. The Federal ingredient involves local distinctions, which not -only produce local jealousies, but give, at the same time, a greater -local capacity to support, and insist upon equitable demands. In a -Confederacy of States, in which the people operate, in one respect as -citizens, and in another as forming political communities, the local -Governments will ever possess a keener sense and capacity, to take -advantage of those powers, on which the protection of local rights -depends. If these great rights be the basis of republics, and if there -be a double necessity of attending to them in a Federal Republic, it is -further to be considered, that there is no one right, of which the -people can judge with more ease and certainty, and of which they will -judge with more jealousy, than of the establishment of the permanent -seat of Government; and I am persuaded, that however often this subject -may be discussed in the representative body, or however the attention of -the committee may be drawn to it, the observations I have made will be -more and more verified. We see the operation of this sentiment fully -exemplified in what has taken place in the several States. In every -instance where the seat of Government has been placed in an uncentral -position, we have seen the people struggling to place it where it ought -to be. In some instances they have not yet succeeded, but I believe they -will succeed in all. In many they have actually gained their point. - -With respect, however, to the Federal Government, there is one -consideration that shows, in a peculiar manner, the necessity and policy -of paying a strict attention to this principle. One of the greatest -objections which has been made by the opponents of the system, which has -been allowed most weight by its friends, is the extent of the United -States. It has been asserted by some, and almost feared by others, that -within so great a space, no free Government can exist. I hope and trust, -that the opinion is erroneous; but, at the same time, I acknowledge it -to have a certain degree of force, and it is incumbent on those who wish -well to the Union, to diminish this inconvenience as much as possible. -The way to diminish it, is to place the Government in that spot which -will be least removed from every part of the empire. Carry it to a -remote position, and it will be equivalent to an extension of our -limits; and if our limits are already extended so far as warrants, in -any degree, the apprehension before mentioned, we ought to take care not -to extend them further. - -The seat of Government is of great importance, if you consider the -diffusion of wealth that proceeds from this source. I presume that the -expenditures which will take place, where the Government will be -established by those who are immediately concerned in its -administration, and by others who may resort to it, will not be less -than half a million dollars a year. It is to be regretted that those who -may be most convenient to the centre should enjoy this advantage to a -higher degree than others; but the inequality is an evil imposed by -necessity; we diminish it as we place the source from which those -emanations of wealth are to proceed as near the centre as possible. - -If we consider, sir, the effects of Legislative power on the aggregate -community, we must feel equal inducements to look for the centre, in -order to find the proper seat of Government. Those who are most adjacent -to the seat of Legislation will always possess advantages over others. -An earlier knowledge of the laws, a greater influence in enacting them, -better opportunities for anticipating them, and a thousand other -circumstances, will give a superiority to those who are thus situated. -If it were possible to promulgate our laws, by some instantaneous -operation, it would be of less consequence in that point of view where -the Government might be placed; but if, on the contrary, time is -necessary for this purpose, we ought, as far as possible, to put every -part of the community on a level. - -If we consider the influence of the Government in its Executive -Department, there is no less reason to conclude that it ought to be -placed in the centre of the Union. It ought to be in a situation to -command information relative to every part of the Union, to watch every -conjuncture, to seize every circumstance that can be improved. The -Executive eye ought to be placed where it can best see the dangers which -may threaten, and the Executive arm, whence it may be extended most -effectually to the protection of every part. Perhaps it is peculiarly -necessary, that, in looking for the position, we should keep our eye as -much as possible towards our Western borders; for a long time dangers -will be most apt to assail that quarter of the Union. - -He was sure, that if justice required us to take any one position in -preference to another, we had every inducement, both of interest and of -prudence to fix on the Potomac, as most satisfactory to our Western -brethren. It is impossible to reflect a moment on the possible severance -of that branch of the Union without seeing the mischiefs which such an -event must create. The area of the United States divided into two equal -parts, will leave, perhaps, one half on the west side of the Alleghany -Mountains. From the fertility of the soil, the fineness of the climate, -and every thing that can favor a growing population, we may suppose the -settlement will go on with every degree of rapidity which our -imagination can conceive. - -If the calculation be just, that we double in twenty-five years, we -shall speedily behold an astonishing mass of people on the Western -waters. Whether this great mass will form a permanent part of the -confederacy, or whether it will be separated into an alien, a jealous -and a hostile people, may depend on the system of measures that is -shortly to be taken. The difference, he observed, between considering -them in the light of fellow-citizens, bound to us by a common affection, -obeying common laws, pursuing a common good, and considering them in the -other light, presents one of the most interesting questions that can -occupy an American mind. Instead of peace and friendship, we shall have -rivalship and enmity; instead of being a great people, invulnerable on -all sides, and without the necessity of those military establishments -which other nations require, we shall be driven into the same expensive -and dangerous means of defence. We shall be obliged to lay burthens on -the people, to support establishments which, sooner or later, may prove -fatal to their liberties. It is incumbent on us, if we wish to act the -part of magnanimous legislators, or patriotic citizens, to consider -well, when we are about to take a step of such vast importance, that it -be directed by the views he had described; we must consider what is -just, what is equal, and what is satisfactory. - -On a candid view of the two rivers, he flattered himself that the seat -which would most correspond with the public interest would be found on -the banks of the Potomac. It was proper that we should have some regard -to the centre of territory; if that was to have weight, he begged leave -to say, that there was no comparison between the two rivers. He defied -any gentleman to cast his eye in the most cursory manner over a map and -say that the Potomac is not much nearer this centre than any part of the -Susquehanna. If we measure from the banks of the Potomac to the most -eastern parts of the United States, it is less distant than to the most -southern. If we measure this great area diagonally, the Potomac will -have the advantage. If you draw a line perpendicularly to the direction -of the Atlantic coast, we shall find that it will run more equally -through the Potomac than through any part of the Union; or, if there be -any difference between one side and the other, there will be a greater -space on the south-west than on the north-east. All the maps of the -United States show the truth of this. From the Atlantic coast to that -line which separates the British possessions from the United States, the -average distance is not more than one hundred and fifty miles. If you -take the average breadth of the other great division of the United -States, it will be found to be six, seven, and eight hundred miles. - -From this view of the subject, which is not easy to describe by words, -but which will strike every eye that looks on a map, I am sure that if -the Potomac is not the geographical centre, it is because the -Susquehanna is less so. - -Mr. CLYMER begged to set the gentleman right; his colleague, if he -understood him, had only related the communication by the north-western -branches, but there was a communication by the Juniata, a branch of the -Susquehanna, about fifteen miles above Harrisburg, tending westerly, and -navigable eighty miles, from whence to the Connemagh was a portage, with -a road actually laid out of about forty miles, hence you descend the -Kisskaminetas to the Alleghany, and from thence to Pittsburg is thirty -miles. - -Mr. SCOTT knew this communication pretty well, but we who live in that -country never take it into consideration, as the waters are too small to -afford a certainty of communication, but even here the portage was -greater than between the Potomac and Youghiogheny. - -Mr. CLYMER said, with respect to the navigation of the Juniata, that it -was in evidence before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania, when they -were considering the means of uniting that navigation with the western -waters, that produce to the amount of fourteen hundred bushels had been -brought down it to Middletown. - -Mr. MADISON proceeded and said, he wished every fact to be ascertained -that could throw any light upon the subject. Taking the Susquehanna, as -it was practicable for navigation, it would be found, that through that -route of communication, Fort Pitt would be four or five hundred miles -from the proposed seat on its banks, and that the distance by land was -not less than two hundred and fifty miles; whereas, through the Potomac -the distance from the proposed spot on its banks to Fort Pitt was not -calculated at more than two hundred and fifty miles, and he believed the -distance by land would be found not to exceed one hundred and sixty or -one hundred and seventy miles. - -Whether we measure the distance by land or water, then, the result is in -favor of the Potomac. If we consider the progress already made in -opening this great channel, its title becomes still stronger. Let me -add, that it has been found, on accurate research, that the waters -communicating with the Ohio are not more than two or three miles distant -from the sources of the Potomac. This is a fact of peculiar importance. - -The gentleman from Massachusetts yesterday raised great objections -against the Potomac, because it was, as he supposed, subject to -periodical maladies, from which the other river was free. I am not -authorized, from personal experience, or very particular information, to -draw a comparison between them; but there are some general facts that -may serve to show, that if there is any difference, it is more likely to -be in favor of the Potomac than of the Susquehanna. The position -contemplated on the banks of the former is considerably further from -tide water than the place proposed on the latter. On this account, -therefore, we have little reason to suppose that the Potomac is more -unhealthy. If we regard their comparative situations, westwardly, the -spot on the Potomac is almost as much further to the west, as it is -distant from the proposed spot on the Susquehanna; and he well knew -that, generally speaking, as were tire towards the Western and upper -country, we are generally removed from the causes of those diseases to -which southern situations are exposed. As the two places are moreover in -the same latitude, the objection advanced, with respect to that point, -cannot apply to one more than the other. It is only their western or -eastern position, their remoteness from, or their proximity to the lower -country, and to fresh or stagnant waters, that can possibly affect the -question. It is not because we advance so much to the south that we -advance to the centre, it is because we go more to the west. I do not -know that there is a difference of more than a degree and five or six -minutes between the latitude of New York and the place proposed on the -Potomac. - -Mr. AMES never intended that this question should be carried through the -committee by the strength of a silent majority; he had confidence in the -weight of the arguments to be urged in favor of the Susquehanna, and he -was willing to put the decision of the question on that ground. He would -now come forward, and give the reasons of his opinion, especially as -gentlemen had entered fully into the reasons which guided their own to a -different conclusion. He did not conceive it would be necessary for him, -coming from the part of the United States from which he did, to disclaim -the local views and narrow prejudices with which the subject teemed. He -had feared, when the question was first brought forward, that the minds -of gentlemen would be highly fermented, indeed so much, that he almost -despaired of coming to a proper decision, nor did he think these -apprehensions were illusive, if he judged from what had already taken -place. He had observed that some gentlemen, whose discernments were -clear and who were generally guided by the straight line of rectitude, -had been most surprisingly warped on the present occasion; he was -fearful that their wishes had misled them from a due regard of the real -object of their pursuit, viz: the public interest and convenience. He -was sensible, that he himself was liable to some improper impressions; -but he trusted he did not feel them in that degree which he thought he -saw in others. - -He was willing to be led by the great principles which other gentlemen -had laid down as the rule of their decision; but he thought they would -lead to a different conclusion from what had been drawn from them; he -admitted that a central situation is to be taken, and in considering -this centre, the centre of a sea-coast line ought to be regarded, -because it is more conveniently accessible, has more wealth, and more -people than an equal area of inland country. Being more liable to -invasion, government should be near to protect it. It is the interest of -the back country to have the Government near the sea, to inspect and -encourage trade, by which their abundant produce will find an export. -And lastly, he said, the contingency of the separation of the Western -country was a reason for preferring the sea-coast. - -He proceeded next to say, there will not be any contest where this -centre of the sea-coast line is to be found: it falls between the rivers -Potomac and Susquehanna. It will be found that there are good reasons -why we should rather move east than south. - -If the sea-coast line is to be preferred, it will follow that the back -lands, west of the Ohio, which the gentleman from Virginia has so often -taken into his calculations, will be excluded; they are not peopled; -they do not affect the sea-coast line; and that line has already been -voted to be the proper one by the committee. As it is true that the -sea-coast has more wealth and more people than the inland country in -proportion to the extent, it is equally true that the eastern half of -the sea-coast has more of both than the southern. If we reckon Maryland, -which will be as well accommodated by the Susquehanna as by the Potomac, -we shall find the population of the eastern part nearly two millions, -and that of the southern only one million, and the population of free -inhabitants still less in favor of the latter. - -But, sir, instead of seeking a centre geographically, we should consider -the centre of common convenience. The place is the proper one where the -greatest number of persons will be best accommodated. I will endeavor to -show that that will be on the Susquehanna. Is the zeal of gentlemen, who -oppose this design, influenced by their despair of removing the seat of -Government afterwards? I believe the people of America will not complain -of it. If fixed there, I think it will be found convenient and will -remain there. - -The Susquehanna is the centre of the common convenience. At this moment -there are more wealth and more inhabitants east than south of it. But -the future population of America is calculated, and it is pretended that -the balance of population is receding from the East. Surely the present -inhabitants may be allowed principally to consult their own convenience. -West of the Ohio is an almost immeasurable wilderness; when it will be -settled, or how it will be possible to govern it, is past calculation. -Gentlemen will pardon me if I think it perfectly romantic to make this -decision depend upon that circumstance. Probably it will be near a -century before those people will be considerable; if we fix the national -seat in the proper place now, it would give me no inquietude to know -that a hundred years hence it may be liable to be removed; but, in fact, -the principle which is assumed by the committee, and which I have -attempted to justify, of taking the centre of the sea-coast line, will, -even in the event of that vast tract being settled, furnish abundant -reasons for its remaining on the Susquehanna. I will not recapitulate -those reasons. We must take some principle to guide us; and though some -inequalities will appear, yet let gentlemen remember, that in so vast a -country great inconveniences will attend the communications of the -people with Government, be the seat of it where it may; and by taking -the centre of the sea-coast line there will be less than any other -principle. It will be found best to accommodate the greatest number; or, -in other words, to be the centre of common convenience: indeed, this is -not denied to be true at this moment; but the case is said to be -changing. On the one hand, I think it is Utopian to calculate upon the -population of the United States a century hence; and, on the other hand, -I admit that it is impolitic at least, perhaps unjust, to confine our -attention to the present population; a quarter of a century may be a -medium. Will gentlemen deny that trade and manufactures will accumulate -people in the Eastern States, in proportion of five to three, compared -with the Southern? The disproportion will, doubtless, continue to be -much greater than I have calculated. It is actually greater at present; -for the climate and negro slavery are acknowledged to be unfavorable to -population: so that husbandry, as well as commerce and manufactures, -will give more people in the Eastern than in the Southern States. The -very circumstance that gentlemen found their reasonings upon is pretty -strongly against their calculations. They tell us of the vast quantities -of good land still unsettled in their States; that will produce a thin -population; for the old lands will not be crowded, so long as new ones -are to be had. - -Mr. CARROLL begged leave to give the Committee some information -respecting the distance from tide-water to Fort Cumberland; from the -tide-water to the Little Falls was three miles, to the Great Falls six -more, from thence to the Seneca Falls was also six more, and from thence -to Old Town one hundred and seventeen; which last place was fifteen -miles from Fort Cumberland, making in all one hundred and forty-five -miles, instead of two hundred, as stated by the gentleman. - -Mr. AMES imagined his statement to be nearly right, and he found Mr. -JEFFERSON stated in his Notes, that the Falls of the Potomac were -fifteen miles in extent, and a navigation extremely difficult to be -made. - -Mr. CARROLL said, it was not near that distance; in the fifteen miles -there were three falls: the Seneca, the Great and Little Falls, but they -occupy but a small part of the fifteen miles; he could certainly form -some judgment of a place which he might say was almost at his door, and -did not expect that Mr. JEFFERSON'S Notes would have been adduced as an -authority to contradict information he had given in his place. As to the -difficulty of the navigation, he had to observe that many of the -obstacles were already so far removed as to render the transportation -down to the Great Falls practicable; that there the canal was nearly -finished, and ready to sink the lock-seats and insert the frames, so -that in a little time there was a probability that no impediment -whatever would obstruct the descent of produce to the tide-water. - -The question, on Mr. Lee's motion for striking out Susquehanna, and -inserting Potomac, was put and lost; for it 21, against it 29. - -Mr. MADISON then moved, to add, after "Susquehanna" the words "or -Potomac;" this would furnish an opportunity to examine and compare the -two situations. It was so favorable to a discovery of the truth, that he -did not doubt but gentlemen who were desirous of grounding their -decision upon a full understanding of the subject would agree to the -motion. - -Mr. BOUDINOT seconded this motion, and supported it, by observing the -necessity there appeared to be, of obtaining a more accurate knowledge -of the two rivers, as gentlemen seemed to differ materially with -respect to the matter of fact. - -Mr. SHERMAN contended, upon the principles adopted yesterday by the -committee, that they could not think of going to the Potomac; he said, -that taking the population, even allowing the slaves in the Southern -States, there was the greatest weight of population north-east of the -Susquehanna; but upon the ratio of representation, at a member for forty -thousand inhabitants, there were but one million two hundred thousand -south of Pennsylvania, one million four hundred thousand north, -including Pennsylvania; but if the calculation was made from the -Potomac, the South would contain nine hundred and sixty thousand -inhabitants, and the North one million six hundred and eighty thousand. -Now, he would ask, if gentlemen could expect that the northern people -would incline to go so far south? He apprehended they would not. - -The question being taken on inserting "or Potomac," it passed in the -negative. - -On motion of Mr. PAGE, the committee rose and reported progress, and -then the House adjourned. - - -SATURDAY, September 5. - -_Permanent Seat of Government._ - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on -establishing the permanent residence of Congress; when - -Mr. FITZSIMONS presented the following resolution: - - _Resolved_, As the opinion of this committee, that the - President of the United States be authorized to appoint - ---- commissioners, to examine, and report to him, the most - eligible situation on the east bank of the Susquehanna, for - the permanent seat of Government of the United States. That - the said commissioners be authorized, by and with the - advice of the President, to purchase such quantity of lands - as may be thought necessary, and to erect thereon, within - ---- years, suitable buildings for the accommodation of the - Congress, and of the officers of the United States. That - the Secretary of the Treasury, together with the - commissioners so to be appointed, be authorized to borrow a - sum not exceeding ---- dollars, to be paid in ---- years, - with interest, at the rate of ---- per cent. per annum, - payable out of the duties on impost and tonnage, to be - applied to the purchase of the land, and the erection of - the buildings aforesaid. And that a bill ought to pass, in - the present session, in conformity with the aforegoing - resolutions. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) doubted the propriety of the resolution, -because he conceived the declaration in the constitution required a -cession of territory as well as jurisdiction. If he was joined in this -sentiment by the committee, he would move that the President be -empowered to appoint commissioners to examine and report a proper place -on the banks of the Susquehanna for a federal town, and that, whenever -the State of Pennsylvania shall cede to the United States a certain -district or territory, not exceeding ten miles square, Congress would -accept thereof for the above purpose. - -Mr. LAWRENCE would inquire for what purpose the cession, mentioned in -the constitution, was required? It was, in the words of that instrument, -to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever; now, did this -consequence involve in it a territorial possession? It certainly did -not. It involved nothing more than the power of making laws independent -of the State jurisdiction. The gentleman might have carried his idea -further, for as the cession is to be made by particular States, it seems -to infer that two States, at least, should be concerned in the cession; -but would objections, from such forced constructions, have any weight in -the judgment of the committee? He trusted they would not. He supposed it -more rational to attend to the plain literal meaning of the constitution -than to engage in the discussion of the refined speculations of -ingenious men. - -Mr. VINING observed, that Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, had offered -to cede territory, as well as jurisdiction, and there would be a great -impropriety in expending the federal treasure, in purchasing the soil, -when they might have it without expense. - -Mr. AMES endeavored to show that such a cession, as was contemplated in -the constitution, might be made by one State to another, without giving -a property to a foot of land, by comparing it with the cession of -Silesia to Prussia, where not a single acre of soil was conveyed, but of -jurisdiction to the whole province; so, when territory changes its -government, by being the sacrifice of a treaty of peace. He supposed -that Congress were to purchase the soil necessary to erect buildings for -the accommodation of the Government, and was satisfied the cession might -be made subsequent to their election of a particular spot. - -Mr. SENEY.--The gentleman from Delaware has said, that Maryland proposed -a cession of soil; but I believe, sir, there is not such a word as soil -mentioned in the law. - -Mr. CARROLL agreed with his colleague, and supposed that a cession of -soil could not have been contemplated, because the State of Maryland had -offered any part of the State, not excepting the town of Baltimore. He -believed if Congress were disposed to fix in that town, it would be -agreeable to the State; but he did not imagine they would agree to give -the General Government a property to the whole town, and the surrounding -country. The other parts of the State had never contemplated making the -inhabitants of Baltimore a compensation for such an immense property. - -Mr. GOODHUE believed, if the House had agreed to go to the Potomac, -there would have been none of these constitutional difficulties stated. -It was well known, he said, that the gentlemen from the eastward had no -desire to take up the subject; but those from the southward were -sanguine in their expectations that they should get the Government to -the Potomac; and were, therefore, for pressing the business, and not -allowing it to be postponed as was contended for on the other hand. - -Mr. MADISON said, the business was not brought on by their original -motion, though they gave it their support. It was true, that a -proposition for postponement was made, but what was the extent of that -postponement? Till December or January next. Was there any reason to -suppose that those gentlemen, who were, at this day, opposed to the -Potomac, would give in to such a change of opinion by that time, as to -induce us to agree to their proposition. We saw no reason to expect such -a change. And, as in fact, we find a predetermined majority ready to -dispose of us, the sooner we know our destiny the better; for it can be -of little consequence, if we are to be disposed of, whether we are -disposed of in September or December. - -Mr. WADSWORTH.--The reiteration of being disposed of by bargaining, -induces me to rise and make one remark. It is a notorious fact to the -members within these walls, that the New England members, to a man, were -opposed to a decision at present; and that they were disposed to -accommodate the Southern States. They refused all bargaining, till they -were assured there was a bargaining set on foot to carry them to the -Potomac; why, then, are we reproached with this? Whatever bargaining -there has been, we were the last to come into it; we never thought of -it, till we were told that we were a property, and should be disposed -of, unless we took care of ourselves. I hope, as we have gone so far, we -shall settle the subject in dispute, by granting the money and erecting -the necessary buildings. - -Mr. JACKSON denied being concerned in any bargaining whatever, and -defied any gentleman to say he knew any thing of one, till he heard it -mentioned on this floor; he was determined to keep himself disengaged, -and to vote according as his judgment should lead him, after hearing the -subject coolly and thoroughly discussed. - -Mr. MADISON hoped, if he travelled a little out of order, he should be -justified, after what had taken place; but he could not withhold this -public declaration of his wish, that every thing that had passed on the -subject alluded to by the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. WADSWORTH,) -were to be fully understood, and were reduced to writing. Every thing he -knew of it he was willing, on his part, to put into that form; and he -was well persuaded that it would be found, on examination, that the -opposition of the Southern gentlemen was of a defensive nature, and that -they had not listened to a proposition, until they had reason to think -it necessary to prevent a sudden and improper decision of this very -important question. - -Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, begged gentlemen to remember, that all the -Southern members had not been in favor of bringing forward the business -at the present session; he had opposed it as well as some others. - -Mr. LEE conceived it to be his duty to present once more the preamble, -which had been rejected in committee. He flattered himself, after the -discussion which had taken place, that gentlemen were prepared to decide -on liberal and national principles, and therefore they would adopt those -he presented. - -Mr. SENEY approved of the Susquehanna in preference to the Potomac, on -every principle which had been brought into view, as proper to guide the -House in deciding the present question. He treated the alarm which -gentlemen apprehended would be given by fixing on the Susquehanna as -merely ideal, and existing nowhere but in the imagination of gentlemen; -so far from exciting jealousy, or disturbing the public mind, he -contemplated it as tending to allay uneasiness, and to give general -satisfaction. - -On motion, the House now adjourned. - - -MONDAY, September 7. - -_Permanent seat of Government._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the resolutions reported by the -Committee of the Whole for establishing the permanent residence of -Congress. - -Whereupon, the first resolution was agreed to, and the second, to wit: - - _Resolved_, That the permanent seat of the Government of - the United States ought to be at some convenient place on - the east bank of the river Susquehanna, in the State of - Pennsylvania; and that, until the necessary buildings be - erected for the purpose, the seat of Government ought to - continue at the city of New York, - -Being under consideration, - -Mr. LEE withdrew his proposition offered yesterday, and moved to amend -the said resolution, by striking out the words "East Bank of the river -Susquehanna, in the State of Pennsylvania," and inserting, in lieu -thereof; the "North Bank of the river Potomac, in the State of -Maryland." - -And, on the question that the House do agree to the said amendment, the -yeas and nays were demanded, and are - - AYES.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Brown, Burke, Carroll, - Coles, Contee, Gale, Griffin, Jackson, Lee, Madison, - Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Smith, (of South Carolina,) - Stone, Sumter, Tucker and Vining--21. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Benson, Boudinot, Cadwalader, Clymer, - Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, - Hartley, Hathorn, Lawrence, Livermore, P. Muhlenberg, - Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman, - Sylvester, Sinnickson, Smith, (of Maryland,) Thatcher, - Trumbull, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--29. - -So it was determined in the negative. - -Mr. VINING said, it now became his duty, after having sacrificed a -prejudice, if he had one, by giving his vote for the Potomac, to bring -before the House the humble claim of Delaware. He apprehended that her -claim to centrality, as it respected wealth and population, was -superior to that of the Susquehanna; and that, if a sea-coast line was -to be a criterion, she was near the centre of territory. He supposed -that this was the line upon which the Committee was to decide for the -present. It was not supposed necessary, at this time, to take into -consideration the vacant and extensive Western Territory, or why refuse -the Potomac, which offered itself under the greatest advantages of an -easy intercourse with that quarter? Add to the reasons he had mentioned, -that the United States would consult their interest by fixing on the -Delaware, as they would not incur the heavy expense of purchasing -territory, and erecting magnificent palaces and hotels for the -Government, and he thought gentlemen would not hesitate to agree with -him. - -The place he meant to offer was possessed of eminent superiority, as to -salubrity of air and fertility of soil; it also united the advantages of -the Atlantic and inland navigation; inasmuch as, by cutting a canal from -the waters of the Chesapeake to the Delaware, a communication would be -opened from Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, to New Jersey, -Pennsylvania and the midland counties of New York. The spot that he -proposed for their acceptance was Wilmington in the State of Delaware; -round which they might have a district for exclusive legislation, if it -was thought proper to accept it. Under these impressions, he would frame -his motions in such a way, as to enable Congress, when they did adjourn, -to adjourn to meet at that borough. It was made in this form: To strike -out the word "permanent," and all the remainder of the clause, after the -words "ought to be at," and to insert in lieu of the last "the borough -of Wilmington, in the State of Delaware." - -On the question that the House do agree to the said amendment, the yeas -and nays were demanded, and are - - AYES.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Boudinot, Burke, Cadwalader, - Coles, Contee, Griffin, Jackson, Lee, Madison, Matthews, - Moore, Page, Parker, Sinnickson, Smith, (of South - Carolina,) Sumter, and Vining--19. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Brown, Carroll, Clymer, - Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, - Grout, Hartley, Hathorn, Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, P. - Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, - Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of Maryland,) Stone, Thatcher, - Trumbull, Tucker, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--32. - -Mr. BOUDINOT remarked that the peculiar situation in which he had been -placed, by having the chair of the Committee, prevented him from giving -his sentiments on the subject then; he therefore hoped to be indulged -with stating the claim of the Delaware to the honor of the Federal City. -When a question of such great magnitude, and which involved the -interests of the Union, was to be decided, he thought he could be -neither doing justice to the United States at large, nor his immediate -constituents, were he to neglect to call their attention to what the -former Congress had done in favor of the Delaware. He was surprised that -gentlemen, who contended for the accommodation of their constituents, -should be led so far astray from pursuing that object, as to pass far -beyond the centre of wealth and population, as well as territory; or, if -they did not pass the centre of territory, they went to a place, maugre -all that had been said, devoid of those advantages which ought to attend -the Federal residence. The want of communication with the Atlantic, the -difficulty of navigating its waters, from the innumerable rocks, falls -and shoals with which it abounds, which, from actual observation, he was -induced to believe were insuperable obstructions to a connection with -the Western waters, or, if they could be surmounted, it would be at such -cost of money and labor, as the United States were not in a condition to -expend, at a time when the widows and orphans were starving for want of -the pittance due to them by the Government. The sterility of the soil, -and the unhealthiness of a situation on the banks of a river which was -subject to rise twenty feet and more, and overflow its banks, leaving -behind vast quantities of stagnant water, whence proceeded noxious -exhalations, the cause of a long catalogue of diseases, were altogether, -in his mind, such objections to the place, that he could never imagine a -majority of the House could consent to it. He further observed, that the -Government would be secluded from the world, and the channels of -information; there were few inhabitants, unless it was in the -neighborhood of York or Lancaster. - -But, beside all these considerations, there was this further, that there -was an existing resolution of Congress for erecting the necessary -buildings for their accommodation on the banks of the Delaware and -Potomac, and an absolute grant of money for the purpose of defraying the -expense. Now, as these had each of them strong pretensions, he was -willing to have them considered and examined by commissioners sent on -the ground. For the sake of accommodation, he would, therefore, move to -amend the resolution, by striking out the words "east bank of the river -Susquehanna, in the State of Pennsylvania," and inserting in lieu -thereof the words "Potomac, Susquehanna, or Delaware." - -On the question that the House do agree to the said amendment, it passed -in the negative; the yeas and nays being required, are as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Boudinot, Brown, Burke, - Cadwalader, Carroll, Coles, Contee, Griffin, Jackson, Lee, - Madison, Matthews, Moore, Parker, Page, Sinnickson, Smith, - (of South Carolina,) Stone, Sumter, Tucker and Vining--23. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, - Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, - Hathorn, Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, P. Muhlenberg, - Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman, - Sylvester, Smith, (of Maryland,) Thatcher, Trumbull, - Wadsworth and Wynkoop--28. - -Mr. BOUDINOT then moved to amend the resolution by striking out the -words "east bank of the river Susquehanna, in the State of -Pennsylvania," and inserting in lieu thereof, the words, "banks of -either side of the river Delaware, not more than eight miles above or -below the lower falls of Delaware." - -On this question, the yeas and nays were demanded, and are: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Boudinot, Cadwalader, Gerry and - Sinnickson--4. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Baldwin, Benson, Bland, Brown, Burke, - Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Contee, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, - Gale, Gilman, Griffin, Grout, Goodhue, Hartley, Hathorn, - Heister, Jackson, Lawrence, Lee, Livermore, Madison, - Matthews, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, Partridge, Van - Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of - Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Sumter, - Thatcher, Trumbull, Tucker, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--46. - -Mr. STONE then moved to amend the resolution, by striking out the words -"east bank," and inserting in lieu thereof the word "banks;" and on the -question, that the House do agree to the said amendment, the yeas and -nays being demanded, were as follow: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Boudinot, Brown, Burke, - Cadwalader, Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gale, Griffin, Jackson, - Lee, Madison, Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Seney, - Sinnickson, Smith, (of Maryland,) Smith, (of South - Carolina,) Stone, Sumter, Tucker, and Vining--26. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, - Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn, - Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van - Rensselaer, Scott, Sherman, Sylvester, Thatcher, Trumbull, - Wadsworth and Wynkoop--25. - -So it passed in the affirmative. - -A motion was then made and seconded, further to amend the said -resolution, by inserting, after the word "Pennsylvania," the words "or -Maryland," and, on the question the House do agree to the said -amendment, it passed in the negative; and the yeas and nays being -demanded, were as follow: - - AYES.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Boudinot, Brown, Burke, - Cadwalader, Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gale, Griffin, Jackson, - Lee, Madison, Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Sinnickson, - Smith, (of M.) Smith, (of S. C.) Stone, Sumter, Tucker and - Vining--25. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, - Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn, - Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, P. Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van - Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman, Sylvester, Thatcher, - Trumbull, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--26. - -Mr. LEE expected the question would be divided on the resolution, as it -contained two distinct objects, the permanent and temporary residence. - -Mr. PAGE suggested the propriety of striking out the latter part of the -clause, relating to New York, and to confine the resolution merely to -the avowed object, namely, the permanent residence. - -The question was taken on striking out, and it passed in the negative, -24 for, 27 against it. - -Mr. VINING then moved to strike out the words "City of New York," and -insert, in lieu thereof, "Borough of Wilmington, in the State of -Delaware;" and on the question to agree to the said amendment, the yeas -and nays being demanded, were as follow: - - AYES.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Boudinot, Brown, Burke, - Cadwalader, Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gale, Griffin, Jackson, - Lee, Madison, Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Sinnickson, - Sumter and Vining--21. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, - Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn, - Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van - Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of - Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Thatcher, - Trumbull, Tucker, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--30. - -So it passed in the negative. - -Mr. PARKER moved to strike out "New York" and insert "Philadelphia." - -Mr. LEE said the city of New York possessed every convenience and -accommodation; he was strongly impressed in favor of the inhabitants, -their urbanity and industry did honor to America, and nothing could -induce him to vote for striking out the words, but a sense of duty. He -flattered himself that a regard would now be paid to the great -principles of centrality, which Philadelphia possessed in a great -degree; the conveniences and accommodations to be found in that city -were equal, if not superior, to what New York presented; her public -buildings and institutions were, he believed, at their command; the -inhabitants were industrious, temperate, and frugal; in short, every -principle which operated in favor of the Susquehanna, as a permanent -residence, applied with equal or more force in favor of Philadelphia as -the temporary seat of Government. - -Mr. SHERMAN hoped the House were disposed to make as few removes as -possible, and that as the buildings for their accommodation might be in -readiness in two or three years at the permanent residence, they would -be disposed to continue in New York till that time. - -On the question, that the House do agree to the said amendment, the yeas -and nays being demanded, are as follows: - - AYES.--Messrs. Baldwin, Boudinot, Brown, Burke, Cadwalader, - Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gale, Griffin, Heister, Jackson, - Lee, Madison, Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Sinnickson, - Stone, Sumter and Vining--22. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Bland, Clymer, Fitzsimons, - Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, - Hathorn, Lawrence, Livermore, P. Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van - Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of - Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Thatcher, Trumbull, - Tucker, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--29. - -The main question being put, the second resolution, as amended, was -agreed to by the House, in the words following, to wit: - - "_Resolved_, That the permanent seat of the Government of - the United States ought to be at some convenient place on - the banks of the river Susquehanna, in the State of - Pennsylvania; and that, until the necessary buildings be - erected for the purpose, the seat of Government ought to - continue in the city of New York." - -The third resolution, in the words following, to wit: - - "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be - authorized to appoint three commissioners, to examine and - report to him the most eligible situation on the banks of - the Susquehanna, in the State of Pennsylvania, for the - permanent seat of the Government of the United States; that - the said Commissioners be authorized under the direction of - the President, to purchase such quantity of land as may be - thought necessary, and to erect thereon, within four years, - suitable buildings for the accommodation of the Congress, - and of the other officers of the United States; that the - Secretary of the Treasury, together with the Commissioners - so to be appointed, be authorized to borrow a sum, not - exceeding one hundred thousand dollars, to be repaid within - twenty years, with interest, not exceeding the rate of five - per cent. per annum, out of the duties on impost and - tonnage, to be applied to the purchase of the land, and the - erection of buildings aforesaid; and that a bill ought to - pass, in the present session, in conformity with the - foregoing resolutions." - -A motion was made by Mr. GALE, to amend the same, by inserting after the -word "aforesaid" the following proviso, viz: - -"Provided, nevertheless, that, previous to any such purchase, or -erection of buildings as aforesaid, the Legislatures of the States of -Pennsylvania and Maryland make such provision for removing all -obstructions to the navigation of the said river, between the seat of -the Federal Government and the mouth thereof, as may be satisfactory to -the President of the United States." - -The ayes and nays being demanded, it passed in the negative. - - AYES.--Messrs. Baldwin, Boudinot, Brown, Burke, Cadwalader, - Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gale, Jackson, Lee, Madison, - Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Seney, Sinnickson, Smith, - (of Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Sumter, - Tucker and Vining--24. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, - Foster, Gale, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn, - Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van - Rensselaer, Scott, Sherman, Sylvester, Thatcher, Trumbull, - Wadsworth and Wynkoop--25. - -And then the main question being put, Do the House agree to the said -third resolution, as reported by the Committee of the whole House? - -The ayes and nays being demanded, it passed in the affirmative. - - AYES.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, - Foster, Gale, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn, - Heister, Lawrence, Livermore, Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van - Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of - Maryland,) Stone, Thatcher, Trumbull, Wadsworth and - Wynkoop--28. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Boudinot, Brown, Burke, Cadwalader, - Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gerry, Jackson, Lee, Madison, - Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Sinnickson, Smith, (of South - Carolina,) Sumter, Tucker and Vining--21. - -_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the foregoing -resolutions, and that Messrs. AMES, LAWRENCE, and CLYMER, do prepare and -bring in the same. - - -MONDAY, September 21. - -_Seat of Government._ - -The House proceeded to consider the bill to establish the seat of -Government of the United States, which lay on the table, with the -amendments, as reported by the Committee of the whole House. - -Mr. SMITH proposed to confine the choice of a situation on the banks of -the Susquehanna, between Checkiselungo creek and the mouth of the river. -He was seconded by Mr. SENEY. - -Mr. HARTLEY hoped the committee would limit it as near the spot -contemplated as possible. - -Mr. HEISTER said, he moved, the other day, for a particular spot on the -river, which he conceived entitled to a preference; if the proposed -motion obtained, that place would be excluded, and he should hesitate -respecting his vote upon the bill. - -Mr. SENEY by no means wished to embarrass the committee; if the motion -proposed would, any how, have that effect, he should withdraw his -second. - -Mr. MADISON felt himself compelled to move for striking out that part of -the bill which provided that the temporary residence of Congress should -continue at New York; as he conceived it irreconcilable with the spirit -of the constitution. If it was not from viewing it in this light, he -should have given the bill no further opposition; and now he did not -mean to enter on the merits of the main question. - -From the constitution, it appeared that the concurrence of the two -Houses of Congress was sufficient to enable them to adjourn from one -place to another; nay, the legal consent of the President was, in some -degree, prescribed in the 7th section of article 1st, where it is -declared, that every order, resolution, or vote, to which the -concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary, -(except on a question of adjournment,) shall be presented to the -President of the United States, and approved by him, before the same -shall take effect. Any attempt, therefore, to adjourn by law, is a -violation of that part of the constitution which gives the power, -exclusively, to the two branches of the Legislature. If gentlemen saw it -in the same light, he flattered himself they would reject that part of -the bill; and, however little they valued the reflection that this city -was not central, which had been so often urged, they would be guided by -arguments springing from a superior source. - -He would proceed to state the reasons which induced him to be of this -opinion; it is declared in the constitution, that neither House, during -the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, -adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in -which the two Houses shall be sitting; from hence he inferred, that the -two Houses, by a concurrence, could adjourn for more than three days, -and to any other place which they thought proper; by the other clause he -had mentioned, the Executive power is restrained from any interference -with the Legislative on this subject; hence, he concluded, it would be -dangerous to attempt to give to the President a power which the -constitution expressly denied him. - - -TUESDAY, September 22. - -_Seat of Government._ - -The engrossed bill to establish the seat of Government of the United -States was read a third time; and the question was, Shall this bill -pass? - -Mr. CARROLL said, he felt himself under peculiar circumstances on the -decision of this important question. The House had determined that the -permanent seat of the Government of the United States should be on the -Susquehanna, in Pennsylvania, and not in Maryland on the Potomac. It was -his opinion that the last would have been most conducive to the interest -of the Union; the voice of the majority of this House is against it. The -Susquehanna, said he, being the next object most likely to attain what I -have laid down as the rule of my conduct on this occasion, and, at the -same time, must be agreeable to the wishes of a great part of my -constituents, I felt myself under an obligation to vote for the -Susquehanna, upon obtaining the clause which made it obligatory upon the -States of Maryland and Pennsylvania to concur in opening the navigation -of that river; and nothing would restrain me from giving my assent to -the bill, but that clause which requires the concurrence of the -President respecting the seat of Government, until Congress meet at -their permanent seat. To this clause I have strong constitutional -objections; they were yesterday fully stated to this House by other -gentlemen. - -I have endeavored to remove this conviction from my mind, in order to -give my assent to the bill; but as I am under the sacred obligation of -an oath to support the constitution, as I cannot efface the conviction -from my mind that it is contrary to the constitution, and as we could -not succeed in striking out the clause, I feel myself under the -disagreeable necessity of giving my dissent to the bill. - -The yeas and nays, on passing the bill, being required by one-fifth of -the members present, were as follow: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Baldwin, Benson, Clymer, Contee, - Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, - Hartley, Hathorn, Jackson, Lawrence, Leonard, Livermore, - Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Scott, Seney, - Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of Maryland,) Stone, Thatcher, - Trumbull, Wadsworth and Wynkoop--31. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bland, Boudinot, Burke, Cadwalader, - Carroll, Coles, Lee, Madison, Matthews, Moore, Parker, - Schureman, Smith, (of South Carolina,) Sumter, Tucker, - Vining, and White--17. - -The bill having passed, was sent to the Senate for their concurrence. - - -SATURDAY, September 26. - -_Seat of Government._ - -A message from the Senate was received, informing the House that they -had passed the bill for establishing the seat of Government of the -United States, with an amendment, which the House immediately took into -consideration. The amendment went to strike out all that related to the -river Susquehanna, both as to fixing the seat of Government there, and -removing the obstructions to the navigation; and to insert, in lieu -thereof, "a district of ten miles square, bounded on the south by a line -running parallel at one mile's distance from the city of Philadelphia, -on the east side of the river of Delaware, and extending northerly and -westerly, so as to include Germantown." - -Mr. BLAND thought the bill was so materially changed as to warrant the -House to postpone its consideration. The principles upon which the -Senate had proceeded, he believed, had not yet been discussed in the -House, and the short time which now remained of the session forbade the -attempt. - -Mr. PAGE seconded this motion. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) hoped that gentlemen would agree to let -the bill lie on the table, and not to be driven into a measure which -they considered injurious to the public interest. He trusted they would -not be influenced to adopt this bill, by the Senate's keeping the -appropriation bill as a hostage for it, which he understood to be the -case. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS was sorry to hear a thing of that kind insinuated against -so respectable a body. He trusted the gentleman had been misinformed; -but should be glad to know his authority. - -Mr. PARTRIDGE declared that a knowledge of this fact would have -considerable influence on his conduct; therefore, he was desirous of -knowing to what an extent it was a certainty. - -Mr. BLAND would not charge the Senate with retaining the appropriation -bill as a hostage; but he thought it of more importance than the bill -they had now sent down, and wished it had been first acted upon. - -Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the appropriation bill was sent only -yesterday to the Senate. - -Mr. STONE did not suspect the Senate of the conduct which had been -intimated; but, nevertheless, he was in favor of the postponement. - -Mr. LEE remarked that the great principles which this House had adopted, -on full debate, were now thrown out of view; they had nothing to do with -the amendment which the Senate had made. He could not, after this -circumstance, bring himself to believe that the House would agree to -the alteration, without discussing the other principles upon which it -must be founded. And here the approaching termination of the session, -and the quantity of unfinished business, presented to the mind a strong -objection; either it could not be done at all, or done to great -disadvantage. Beside, if it is laid over to the next session, the voice -of the people may be better understood on this important question; when -that was fully and fairly expressed, he flattered himself with a -harmonious determination, to which all parties would submit without a -single murmur. - -Mr. SHERMAN thought the amendment of the Senate founded in wisdom, and -upon true principles; the House had now nothing else before them. -Indeed, they had just been spending an hour or two upon a very -uninteresting subject respecting printers; he therefore trusted they -would proceed to consider the amendment fully, and come in a proper time -to a decision upon it. - -Mr. WHITE considered the amendment of the Senate as totally changing the -tenor of the bill, and therefore it was like introducing a new subject. -Indeed, in all the long arguments which the question had drawn out, he -believed this place had never been mentioned. The gentleman last up, -said there was no business before the House at present: but he would -ask, if a business had never yet been before them, whether a member -would be permitted to bring it forward at this late hour. He might be -told, that the act of the Senate carried greater weight in it than the -motion of a member. But he would place against that weight, the weight -of the vote of this House, which on a former day agreed to fix the seat -of Government on the banks of the Susquehanna; so that the question may -be supposed to stand on independent ground. - -But there was a collateral observation he would make. If Germantown was -the proper place for the permanent residence of Congress, it was so near -Philadelphia as to prove that that city would be the proper place for -the temporary residence, and of course they ought to move there -immediately, and order the next session to be held there; but both these -questions were of too much moment to be fixed by a hasty vote of the -House. - -Mr. JACKSON had given his assent to the bill as it passed the House, -after a fair opposition: he was satisfied his fellow-citizens would -submit to what appeared to be the voice of their country; though they -would have preferred the Potomac on account of its centrality and -contiguity to the Western Territory, yet he acceded to the Susquehanna; -but this was no reason he should vote for Germantown. Who are those that -say to us, Germantown is the most proper spot that can be selected? They -are the representatives of the State sovereignties; where the large and -small States are equally represented, the voice of the majority of the -people is lost in the inequality of the political branch of the -Legislature. He could not but think an alteration in the sentiment of -the House, on this ground, would excite serious alarm in the minds of -the people; to avoid which consequence, he should agree to the -postponement. - -Mr. GERRY urged, as a reason for postponement, that North Carolina and -Rhode Island were out of the Union at present; and that, as there was a -flattering expectation that at least one of those States would adopt the -constitution by the next session, it would be extremely desirable to -have their voice in determining this great question. - -Mr. MADISON.--However different our sentiments, with respect to the -place most proper for the seat of the Federal Government, I presume we -shall all agree that a right decision is of great importance; and that a -satisfactory decision is of equal moment to the happiness and -tranquillity of the Union: that even the manner and circumstances under -which such decision may take place, are worthy of serious consideration. - -Now, sir, the amendment proposed by the Senate, not only deserves the -name of a new bill, but it proceeds on principles different from those -which served for the basis of the bill sent up to them from this House: -hence I presume, sir, it is not only necessary to examine the merits of -the proposition, but to enter into a full and minute investigation of -those principles upon which it is founded: the proposition is new and in -some degree opposed to what has heretofore prevailed: the public mind -has not yet been called to the consideration of it; nay, I believe it -never yet has been contemplated by the inhabitants of any one State: the -eye of America should be indulged with an opportunity of viewing it -before it be made their fixed abode. All the other places which have -been mentioned as candidates for the seat of Government, on this -occasion, have at different times, and in different forms, been held up -to the public attention; two of them had not only employed the -deliberation, but had obtained the favorable decision of the old -Congress; now after all this, to take up and adopt in a moment, a rival -place, never before contemplated, is risking an improper and a -dissatisfactory decision. - -Mr. STONE reminded the House of the majority there was in selecting the -Susquehanna, which he conceived to be the second best spot in the United -States; and how much greater that majority would have been than 31 to -17, if no other question had been involved in the bill: he could hardly -suppose such a change of sentiment would take place without argument, as -was necessary in order to get the Senate's amendment adopted, which, he -understood, was carried by a small majority indeed. - -Mr. WHITE would just add one observation, which was respecting the -enormous price of land in the vicinity of Philadelphia; and how -imprudent it would be for Congress to subject themselves to an -exorbitant demand of this nature, by fixing upon the precise spot where -this Federal town should be. - -The question was now taken on postponing the consideration of the -amendment proposed by the Senate, until the next session; and the yeas -and nays being called, are: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Brown, Burke, Carroll, - Coles, Contee, Gale, Gerry, Griffin, Jackson, Lee, Madison, - Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Schureman, Seney, Smith, (of - Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Sumter, - Tucker and White--25. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Cadwalader, Clymer, - Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, - Hathorn, Heister, Lawrence, Leonard, Livermore, Muhlenberg, - Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Scott, Sherman, Sylvester, - Sinnickson, Thatcher, Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, and - Wynkoop--29. - -So it was determined in the negative. - - -MONDAY, September 28. - -_Seat of Government._ - -Mr. SHERMAN--In our deliberations on this occasion, we should have an -eye to the general accommodation of the Union, and the best way of -defraying the expense. The place fixed upon by the Senate, he presumed, -was known to the members generally; hence they were able to judge of its -eligibility at the first view; it certainly possessed some advantages -over the other situation; and he believed it was as central, if not more -so than the Susquehanna, as it respected the present inhabitants; the -air, the soil, in that neighborhood, were quite as agreeable as the -other. But there was an access by water, from every part of the United -States, which furnished a very great convenience; but beside this, those -who came from the Southern States, had generally an inland navigation, -with a short distance to come by land from the head of the Elk; so the -citizens of the Eastern States, in like manner, would be accommodated by -coming through the Sound and crossing to Amboy, on which route they -would have but about 70 miles land carriage; a distance nearly equal -with the other. He admitted that Germantown was not quite so near to the -Western Territory as the Susquehanna was; but he contemplated a very -distant day before it would be settled, and much longer before the -inhabitants would have frequent occasion of travelling to the seat of -Government. Added to the advantages he had mentioned, there were good -buildings, and convenience for arsenals and ship-yards, with abundance -of artificers on the spot; these considerations, taken together, induced -him to think it best to concur with the Senate. - -Mr. SMITH thought the honorable gentleman rather inconsistent in his -argument to-day. If he recollected right, the gentleman had formerly -urged in favor of the Susquehanna, that it was not accessible by vessels -from sea; and now he recommends this quality as an advantage in favor of -the Delaware. The gentleman admits that this position is not quite so -near the Western Territory as the one chosen by the House; but then he -thinks no inconvenience will arise, inasmuch as it will be some years -before it is peopled: but how does this comport with the principle laid -down by an almost unanimous vote of the House? At the beginning of this -business, we declare that a due regard should be had to the Western -Territory; he now tells us, as an argument in favor of the Senate's -amendment, that we should have no regard to it at all. He thinks the -change made in the manner of obtaining the money favorable; but what -advantage will accrue to the United States from Pennsylvania's granting -100,000 dollars, when Congress will have to purchase the land on which -they are to sit down? Land in the neighborhood of Philadelphia, he had -been told, was worth 40 or 50 pounds an acre. The 100,000 dollars, given -by Pennsylvania, would not go far in a purchase at this rate. He thought -the Government would have a better bargain in buying cheap lands on the -Susquehanna; or perhaps they might have been got there for nothing. He -thought this alteration unfavorable to the Public Treasury, which could -illy supply such a demand upon it. - -Mr. MADISON contended that the amendment proposed by the Senate was a -departure from every principle adopted by the House; but he would not -trouble them with a recapitulation of arguments, which he feared would -be unavailing; he wished, however, that the House would provide against -one inconvenience, which was, to prevent the district in Pennsylvania, -chosen by Congress, from being deprived for a time of the benefit of the -laws. This, he apprehended, would be the case, unless Congress made -provision for the operation of the laws of Pennsylvania, in the act by -which they accepted of the cession of that State; for the State -relinquished the right of legislation from the moment that Congress -accepted of the district. The propriety of this proposition was so -apparent, that he had not a doubt but the House would consent to it. He -then moved the following proviso: "And provided, that nothing herein -contained shall be construed to affect the operation of the laws of -Pennsylvania, within the district ceded and accepted, until Congress -shall otherwise provide by law." - -Mr. LIVERMORE objected to this motion; because he supposed there was no -necessity for it. - -The question was then taken, do the House agree to the amendment? and -decided in the affirmative. The yeas and nays being demanded, are as -follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Cadwalader, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, - Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn, - Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Leonard, Livermore, - Muhlenberg, Partridge, Van Rensselaer, Schureman, Scott, - Sherman, Sylvester, Sinnickson, Thatcher, Trumbull, Vining, - Wadsworth and Wynkoop--31. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Boudinot, Brown, Burke, - Carroll, Coles, Contee, Gale, Griffin, Jackson, Lee, - Madison, Matthews, Moore, Page, Parker, Seney, Smith, (of - Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Sumter, - Tucker, and White--24. - -And here the bill was dropped for the session. - - -TUESDAY, September 29. - -The two following messages were received from the President: - - - UNITED STATES, Sept. 29, 1789. - - _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_ - - His Most Christian Majesty, by a letter dated the 7th of - June last, addressed to the President and members of the - General Congress, of the United States of North America, - announces the much lamented death of his son the Dauphin. - The generous conduct of the French monarch and nation - towards this country renders every event that may affect - his or their prosperity interesting to us; and I shall take - care to assure him of the sensibility with which the United - States participate in the affliction which a loss so much - to be regretted must have occasioned both to him and them. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - - UNITED STATES, Sept. 29, 1789. - - _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_ - - Having yesterday been informed, by a joint committee of - both Houses of Congress, that they had agreed to a recess, - to commence this day, and to continue until the first - Monday in January next, I take the earliest opportunity of - acquainting you that, considering how long and laborious - this session has been, and the reasons which, I presume, - have produced this resolution, it does not appear to me - expedient to recommend any measures to their consideration - at present. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - -On motion of Mr. GERRY, it was ordered, that it shall be the duty of the -Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House, at the end of each -session, to send a printed copy of the Journals thereof, respectively, -to the Supreme Executive, and each branch of the Legislature, of every -State. - -And then it was 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 proceed to close the present session, by an adjournment on -their part, agreeably to the order of the 26th instant; and that the -Clerk of this House do go with the said message. - -The Clerk accordingly went with the said message, and being returned, - -The Speaker adjourned the House until the first Monday in January next. - - - - -FIRST CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION. - -BEGUN AT THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JANUARY 4, 1790. - -PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE. - - -MONDAY, January 4, 1790. - -The following members of the Senate assembled: - -From New Hampshire, JOHN LANGDON and PAINE WINGATE. - -From Massachusetts, CALEB STRONG and TRISTRAM DALTON. - -From Connecticut, WILLIAM S. JOHNSON. - -From New York, RUFUS KING and PHILIP SCHUYLER. - -From South Carolina, RALPH IZARD and PIERCE BUTLER. - -From Georgia, WILLIAM FEW. - -A quorum of members not being present, they adjourned till to-morrow. - - -TUESDAY, January 5. - -JOHN HENRY, from Maryland, in addition to the members assembled -yesterday, attended; but not being a quorum, they adjourned. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 6. - -WILLIAM MACLAY, from Pennsylvania, attended; a quorum of the members of -the Senate were present, and the Secretary was directed to inform the -House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate have assembled, and -are ready to proceed to business. - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. STRONG and IZARD be a committee on the part of -the Senate, with such committee as the House of Representatives may -appoint on their part, to inform the President of the United States that -a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and will be ready in the Senate -Chamber, at such time as the President may appoint, to receive any -communications he may be pleased to make. - - -THURSDAY, January 7. - -OLIVER ELLSWORTH, of Connecticut, and WILLIAM PATERSON, from New Jersey, -attended. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that -they have resolved that two Chaplains, of different denominations, be -appointed to Congress for the present session, one by each House, who -shall interchange weekly. - -Mr. STRONG, on behalf of the joint committee, reported to the Senate, -that they had waited on the President of the United States, agreeably to -the order of both Houses, and that he informed the committee that he -would meet the two Houses in the Senate Chamber to-morrow at 11 o'clock. - - -FRIDAY, January 8. - -_Ordered_, That the House of Representatives be informed that the Senate -are ready to meet them in the Senate Chamber, to receive any -communication the President of the United States may be pleased to make -to the two Houses of Congress; and that the usual seats will be assigned -them. - -The House of Representatives having accordingly taken their seats, the -President of the United States came into the Senate Chamber, and -addressed both Houses of Congress as followeth: - - _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and House of - Representatives:_ - - I embrace with great satisfaction the opportunity which now - presents itself of congratulating you on the present - favorable prospects of our public affairs. The recent - accession of the important State of North Carolina to the - constitution of the United States, (of which official - information has been received;) the rising credit and - respectability of our country; the general and increasing - good-will towards the Government of the Union; and the - concord, peace, and plenty with which we are blessed, are - circumstances auspicious in an eminent degree to our - national prosperity. - - In resuming your consultations for the general good, you - cannot but derive encouragement from the reflection that - the measures of the last session have been as satisfactory - to your constituents, as the novelty and difficulty of the - work allowed you to hope. Still further to realize their - expectations, and to secure the blessings which a gracious - Providence has placed within our reach, will, in the course - of the present important session, call for the cool and - deliberate exertion of your patriotism, firmness, and - wisdom. - - Among the many interesting objects which will engage your - attention, that of providing for the common defence will - merit particular regard. To be prepared for war, is one of - the most effectual means of preserving peace. - - A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; - to which end, a uniform and well-digested plan is - requisite: and their safety and interest require that they - should promote such manufactures as tend to render them - independent of others for essential, particularly military - supplies. - - The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed - indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In - the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will - be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of - the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy. - - There was reason to hope that the pacific measures adopted - with regard to certain hostile tribes of Indians, would - have relieved the inhabitants of our Southern and Western - frontiers from their depredations; but you will perceive, - from the information contained in the papers which I shall - direct to be laid before you, (comprehending a - communication from the commonwealth of Virginia,) that we - ought to be prepared to afford protection to those parts of - the Union, and, if necessary, to punish aggressors. - - The interests of the United States require that our - intercourse with other nations should be facilitated by - such provisions as will enable me to fulfil my duty, in - that respect, in the manner which circumstances may render - most conducive to the public good; and to this end, that - the compensations to be made to the persons who may be - employed, should, according to the nature of their - appointments, be defined by the law; and a competent fund - designated for defraying the expenses incident to the - conduct of our foreign affairs. - - Various considerations also render it expedient that the - terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of - citizens, should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule - of naturalization. - - Uniformity in the currency, weights and measures, of the - United States, is an object of great importance, and will, - I am persuaded, be duly attended to. - - The advancement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, - by all proper means, will not, I trust, need - recommendation; but I cannot forbear intimating to you the - expediency of giving effectual encouragement, as well to - the introduction of new and useful inventions from abroad, - as to the exertions of skill and genius in producing them - at home; and of facilitating the intercourse between the - distant parts of our country by a due attention to the - Post-Office and post-roads. - - Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in - opinion, that there is nothing which can better deserve - your patronage than the promotion of science and - literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis - of public happiness. In one in which the measures of - Government receive their impression so immediately from the - sense of the community as in ours, it is proportionably - essential. To the security of a free constitution it - contributes in various ways. By convincing those who are - intrusted with the public administration, that every - valuable end of Government is best answered by the - enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the - people themselves to know and to value their own rights to - discern and provide against invasions of them; to - distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise - of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a - disregard to their convenience, and those resulting from - the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the - spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness, cherishing - the first, avoiding the last, and uniting a speedy but - temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an - inviolable respect to the laws. - - Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by - affording aids to seminaries of learning already - established, by the institution of a national university, - or by any other expedients, will be well worthy of a place - in the deliberations of the Legislature. - - - _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_ - - I saw with peculiar pleasure, at the close of the last - session, the resolution entered into by you, expressive of - your opinion that an adequate provision for the support of - the public credit is a matter of high importance to the - national honor and prosperity. In this sentiment I entirely - concur. And, to a perfect confidence in your best endeavors - to devise such a provision as will be truly consistent with - the end, I add an equal reliance on the cheerful - co-operation of the other branch of the Legislature. It - would be superfluous to specify inducements to a measure in - which the character and permanent interests of the United - States are so obviously and so deeply concerned, and which - has received so explicit a sanction from your declaration. - - - _Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:_ - - I have directed the proper officers to lay before you, - respectively, such papers and estimates as regard the - affairs particularly recommended to your consideration, and - necessary to convey to you that information of the state of - the Union, which it is my duty to afford. - - The welfare of our country is the great object to which our - cares and efforts ought to be directed. And I shall derive - great satisfaction from a co-operation with you, in the - pleasing though arduous task of insuring to our - fellow-citizens the blessings which they have a right to - expect from a free, efficient and equal Government. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, January 8, 1790. - - -The President of the United States having retired, and the two Houses -being separated: - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. KING, IZARD, and PATERSON, be a committee to -prepare and report the draft of an address to the President of the -United States, in answer to his speech delivered this day to both Houses -of Congress, in the Senate Chamber. - -_Ordered_, That the speech of the President of the United States, -delivered this day, be printed for the use of the Senate. - -The Senate adjourned to Monday next. - - -MONDAY, January 11. - -Mr. KING, on behalf of the committee, reported an address to the -President of the United States, in answer to his speech to both Houses -of Congress, which being amended, was adopted as followeth: - - _To the President of the United States._ - - SIR:--We, the Senate of the United States, return you our - thanks for your speech delivered to both Houses of - Congress. The accession of the State of North Carolina to - the Constitution of the United States gives us much - pleasure: and we offer you our congratulations on that - event, which at the same time adds strength to our Union, - and affords a proof that the more the constitution has been - considered, the more the goodness of it has appeared. The - information which we have received, that the measures of - the last session have been as satisfactory to our - constituents as we had reason to expect, from the - difficulty of the work in which we were engaged, will - afford us much consolation and encouragement in resuming - our deliberations, in the present session, for the public - good; and every exertion on our part shall be made to - realize and secure to our country those blessings which a - gracious Providence has placed within our reach. We are - persuaded that one of the most effectual means of - preserving peace is to be prepared for war; and our - attention shall be directed to the objects of common - defence, and to the adoption of such plans as shall appear - the most likely to prevent our dependence on other - countries for essential supplies. In the arrangements to be - made respecting the establishment of such troops as may be - deemed indispensable, we shall, with pleasure, provide for - the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers, with - a due regard to economy. We regret that the pacific - measures adopted by Government, with regard to certain - hostile tribes of Indians, have not been attended with the - beneficial effects towards the inhabitants of our Southern - and Western frontiers which we had reason to hope, and we - shall cheerfully co-operate in providing the most effectual - means for their protection, and, if necessary, for the - punishment of aggressors. The uniformity of the currency, - and of weights and measures; the introduction of new and - useful inventions from abroad, and the exertions of skill - and genius in producing them at home; the facilitating the - communication between the distant parts of our country, by - means of the Post-Office and post-roads; a provision for - the support of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and a - uniform rule of naturalization, by which foreigners may be - admitted to the rights of citizens, are objects which shall - receive such early attention as their respective importance - requires. Literature and Science are essential to the - preservation of a free constitution: the measures of - Government should, therefore, be calculated to strengthen - the confidence that is due to that important truth. - Agriculture, Commerce, and Manufactures, forming the basis - of the wealth and strength of our confederated Republic, - must be the frequent subject of our deliberation, and shall - be advanced by all proper means in our power. Public Credit - being an object of great importance, we shall cheerfully - co-operate in all proper measures for its support. Proper - attention shall be given to such papers and estimates as - you may be pleased to lay before us. Our cares and efforts - shall be directed to the welfare of our country; and we - have the most perfect dependence upon your co-operating - with us, on all occasions, in such measures as will insure - to our fellow-citizens the blessings which they have a - right to expect from a free, efficient, and equal - Government. - - -TUESDAY, January 12. - -_Ordered_, That the Address to the President of the United States, in -answer to his speech, be presented by the Vice President, attended by -the Senate, and that the committee which reported the address wait on -the President, and desire to be informed at what time and place he will -receive the same. - -Mr. KING, in behalf of the committee, reported that it would be -agreeable to the President to receive the address of the Senate, in -answer to his speech, on Thursday next, at 11 o'clock, at his own house. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 13. - -JONATHAN ELMER, from New Jersey, attended. - -BENJAMIN HAWKINS, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his -credentials, and took his seat. - -The Vice President administered the oath to Mr. HAWKINS. - - -THURSDAY, January 14. - -Agreeably to the order of the 12th instant, the Senate waited on the -President of the United States, at his own house, where the Vice -President, in their name, delivered to the President of the United -States the address agreed to on the 11th instant: - -To which the President of the United States was pleased to make the -following reply: - - _Gentlemen:_ I thank you for your address, and for the - assurances which it contains of attention to the several - matters suggested by me to your consideration. - - Relying on the continuance of your exertions for the public - good, I anticipate for our country the salutary effects of - upright and prudent counsels. - - G. WASHINGTON. - -The Senate having returned to the Senate Chamber, adjourned. - - -FRIDAY, January 15. - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. ELLSWORTH, HAWKINS, and PATERSON, be a committee -to bring in a bill, in addition to "An act to establish the Judicial -Courts of the United States." - - -WEDNESDAY, January 20. - -On motion, - - _Resolved_, That Messrs. ELLSWORTH, MACLAY, and HENRY, be a - committee to confer with such committee as may be appointed - on the part of the House of Representatives, to consider - and report whether or not the business began previous to - the late adjournment of Congress, shall now be proceeded in - as if no adjournment had taken place. - -_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the House of Representatives, -acquainting them herewith, and requesting the appointment of a similar -committee on their part. - - -THURSDAY, January 21. - -ROBERT MORRIS from Pennsylvania, attended. - - A message from the House of Representatives informed the - Senate that they had agreed to the appointment of a - committee on their part, consisting of Messrs. SHERMAN, - THATCHER, HARTLEY, WHITE, and JACKSON, to confer with the - committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to consider - and report whether or not the business begun previous to - the late adjournment of Congress, shall now be proceeded in - as if no adjournment had taken place. - - -FRIDAY, January 22. - -Mr. ELLSWORTH, on behalf of the "joint committee of the two Houses, -appointed to consider and report whether or not the business begun -previous to the late adjournment of Congress, shall now be proceeded in -as if no adjournment had taken place," reported. - -_Ordered_, That the consideration of the report be deferred until Monday -next. - - -MONDAY, January 25. - -The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the joint committee of -the Senate and House of Representatives, appointed the 20th instant, to -wit: "that the business unfinished between the two Houses at the late -adjournment ought to be regarded as if it had not been passed upon by -either;" - -And, on motion that the report of the committee be postponed, it passed -in the negative. - -And, upon the question to agree to the report of the committee, the yeas -and nays being required by one-fifth of the Senators present: - - _Yeas._--Messrs. Butler, Dalton, Ellsworth, Few, Hawkins, - Henry, Johnson, King, Schuyler, and Strong--10. - - _Nays._--Messrs. Bassett, Elmer, Izard, Langdon, Maclay, - Morris, Paterson, and Wingate--8. - -And so it passed in the affirmative. - -And it was - - _Resolved_, That the business unfinished between the two - Houses at the late adjournment ought to be regarded as if - it had not been passed upon by either. - - -TUESDAY, January 26. - -A message from the House of Representatives announced their agreement -with the Senate in their resolution, that the business unfinished -between the two Houses, at the late adjournment, ought to be regarded as -if it had not been passed upon by either. - - -THURSDAY, January 28. - -On motion it was - -_Ordered_, That the letter from the Governor of Rhode Island of the 18th -of January instant, to the President of the United States, requesting a -further suspension of the acts of Congress subjecting the citizens of -the State of Rhode Island to the payment of foreign tonnage and foreign -duties, during the pleasure of Congress, and communicated with the -President's message this day, be referred to the same committee. - -FRIDAY, January 29. - -SAMUEL JOHNSTON, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his -credentials, and took his seat in the Senate. - -The Vice President administered the oath to Mr. JOHNSTON. - - -TUESDAY, May 11. - -The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the committee appointed -the 28th of April, to consider what provisions will be proper for -Congress to make, in the present session, respecting the State of Rhode -Island; whereupon, - -_Resolved_, That all commercial intercourse between the United States -and the State of Rhode Island, from and after the first day of July -next, be prohibited, under suitable penalties; and that the President of -the United States be authorized to demand of the State of Rhode Island ----- dollars, to be paid into the Treasury of the United States by the ----- day of ---- next; which shall be credited to the said State, in -account with the United States; and that a bill or bills be brought in -for those purposes. - -_Ordered_, That the committee who brought in the above report prepare -and report a bill accordingly. - - -THURSDAY, May 13. - -Mr. ELLSWORTH, reported, from the committee appointed May 3d, to -consider and report their opinion on the question, when according to the -constitution, the terms for which the President, Vice President, -Senators, and Representatives, have been respectively chosen, shall be -deemed to have commenced; and, also, to consider of, and report their -opinion on such other matters as they shall conceive have relation to -this question. - -_Ordered_, That this report lie for consideration. - - -FRIDAY, May 14. - -The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the joint committee, -appointed the 28th of April, which is as follows: - - The committee of the Senate, to join with a committee - appointed by the House of Representatives, to consider and - report their opinion on the question, when, according to - the Constitution, the terms for which the President, Vice - President, Senators, and Representatives, have been - respectively chosen, shall be deemed to have commenced; - and, also, to consider of, and report their opinion on, - such other matters as they should conceive to have relation - to this question, report, as the opinion of the said joint - committee: - - That the terms for which the President, Vice President, - Senators, and Representatives, of the United States, were - respectively chosen, did, according to the constitution, - commence on the 4th day of March, 1789; and so the Senators - of the first class, and the Representatives, will not, - according to the constitution, be entitled, by virtue of - the same election by which they hold seats in the present - Congress, to seats in the next Congress, which will be - assembled after the 3d day of March, 1791; and further, - that, whenever a vacancy shall happen in the Senate or - House of Representatives, and an election to fill such - vacancy, the person elected will not, according to the - constitution, be entitled, by virtue of such election, to - hold a seat beyond the time for which the Senator or - Representative in whose stead such person shall have been - so elected, would, if the vacancy had not happened, have - been entitled to hold a seat. - - That it will be advisable for the Congress to pass a law or - laws for determining, agreeable to the provision in the - first section of the second article of the constitution, - the time when the electors shall, in the year which will - terminate on the 3d day of March, 1793, and so in every - fourth year thereafter, be chosen, and the day on which - they shall give their votes; for declaring what officer - shall, in case of vacancy, both in the office of President - and Vice President, act as President; for assigning a - public office where the lists, mentioned in the second - paragraph of the first section in the second article of the - constitution, shall in case of vacancy in the office of - President of the Senate, or his absence from the seat of - Government, be, in the mean time, deposited; and for - directing the mode in which such lists shall be - transmitted: whereupon, - - _Resolved_, That the Senate do agree to this report. - - -MONDAY, May 17. - -The Senate proceeded to the third reading of the bill to prevent -bringing goods, wares, and merchandises from the State of Rhode Island -and Providence Plantations into the United States, and to authorize a -demand of money from the said State, and, - -On motion, - -_Ordered_, That this bill be recommitted. - - -TUESDAY, May 18. - -Mr. CARROLL, from the committee appointed April the 28th, to consider -what provisions will be proper for Congress to make, in the present -session, respecting the State of Rhode Island, and to whom it was -referred, to bring in a bill on that subject, reported several -additional clauses to the bill to prevent bringing goods, wares, and -merchandises, from the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations -into the United States, and to authorize a demand of money from the said -State; which report was agreed to as amendments to the bill. - -The Senate proceeded to the third reading of the bill to prevent -bringing goods, wares, and merchandises, from the State of Rhode Island -and Providence Plantations into the United States, and to authorize a -demand of money from the said State; - -And, on the question, "Shall this bill pass?" the yeas and nays being -required by one-fifth of the Senators present, were: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bassett, Carroll, Dalton, Ellsworth, - Johnson, Johnston, Izard, King, Langdon, Morris, Reed, - Schuyler, and Strong--13. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Butler, Elmer, Hawkins, Henry, Lee, Maclay, - Walker, and Wingate--8. - -So it was _Resolved_, That this bill do pass, and that it be carried to -the House of Representatives for concurrence therein. - - -TUESDAY, June 1. - -The following message was received from the President of the United -States, and was read: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and House of Representatives:_ - - Having received official information of the accession of - the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations to the - constitution of the United States, I take the earliest - opportunity of communicating the same to you, with my - congratulations on this happy event, which unites, under - the General Government, all the States which were - originally confederated; and have directed my Secretary to - lay before you a copy of the letter from the President of - the Convention of the State of Rhode Island to the - President of the United States. - - G. WASHINGTON. - UNITED STATES, June 1, 1790. - -The Senate then entered on Executive business. - -The following message from the President of the United States, by his -Secretary, was read: - - - UNITED STATES, May 31, 1790. - - _Gentlemen of the Senate:_ - - Mr. De Poiery served in the American army for several of - the last years of the late war, as Secretary to Major - General the Marquis de Lafayette, and might probably at the - same time have obtained the commission of Captain from - Congress, upon application to that body. At present, he is - an officer in the French National Guards, and solicits a - Brevet Commission from the United States of America. I am - authorized to add, that while the compliance will involve - no expense on our part, it will be particularly grateful to - that friend of America, the Marquis de Lafayette. - - I therefore nominate M. De Poiery to be a Captain by - Brevet. - - GEORGE WASHINGTON. - -_Ordered_, That the message lie for consideration. - - -WEDNESDAY, June 2. - - _Resolved_, That the Senate will attend the funeral of - Colonel Bland, late a member of the House of - Representatives of the United States, at five o'clock this - afternoon.[30] - -The Senate then entered on Executive business, and consented to the -nomination of M. De Poiery to be a Captain by Brevet, in the service of -the United States. - - -WEDNESDAY, August 4. - -The Senate then entered on Executive business, and the following message -from the President of the United States was read:[31] - - UNITED STATES, August 4th, 1790. - - _Gentlemen of the Senate:_ - - In consequence of the general principles agreed to by the - Senate in August, 1789, the adjustment of the terms of a - treaty is far advanced between the United States and the - Chiefs of the Creek Indians now in this city, in behalf of - themselves and the whole Creek Nation. - - In preparing the articles of this treaty, the present - arrangements of the trade with the Creeks have caused much - embarrassment. It seems to be well ascertained, that the - trade is almost exclusively in the hands of a company of - British merchants, who by agreement, make their - importations of goods from England into the Spanish ports. - - As the trade of the Indians is a main means of their - political management, it is therefore obvious, that the - United States cannot possess any security for the - performance of treaties with the Creeks, while their trade - is liable to be interrupted, or withheld, at the caprice of - two foreign powers. - - Hence it becomes an object of real importance to form new - channels for the commerce of the Creeks through the United - States. But this operation will require time, as the - present arrangements cannot be suddenly broken without the - greatest violation of faith and morals. - - It therefore appears to be important to form a secret - article of a treaty, similar to the one which accompanies - this message. - - If the Senate should require any further explanation, the - Secretary of War will attend them for that purpose. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - -The President of the United States puts the following question for the -consideration and advice of the Senate: If it should be found essential -to a treaty for the firm establishment of peace with the Creek nation of -Indians, that an article to the following effect should be inserted -therein, will such an article be proper? viz: - - SECRET ARTICLE. - - The commerce necessary for the Creek nation shall be - carried on through the ports, and by the citizens of the - United States, if substantial and effectual arrangements - shall be made for that purpose by the United States, on or - before the 1st day of August, one thousand seven hundred - and ninety-two. In the mean time, the said commerce may be - carried on through its present channels, and according to - its present regulations. - - And whereas, the trade of the said Creek nation is now - carried wholly, or principally, through the territories of - Spain, and obstructions thereto, may happen by war or - prohibitions of the Spanish Government: it is therefore - agreed between the said parties, that in the event of such - obstructions happening, it shall be lawful for such persons - as ---- ---- shall designate, to introduce into, and - transport through the territories of the United States to - the country of the said Creek nation, any quantity of - goods, wares, and merchandise, not exceeding in value, in - any one year, sixty thousand dollars, and that free from - any duties or impositions whatsoever, but subject to such - regulations for guarding against abuse, as the United - States shall judge necessary; which privilege shall - continue as long as such obstruction shall continue. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, August 4th, 1790. - -The Senate proceeded to consider the message from the President of the -United States of this day; whereupon, - - _Resolved_, That the Senate do advise and consent to the - execution of the secret article referred to in the message, - and that the blank in said article be filled with the words - "President of the United States." - - -WEDNESDAY, August 11. - -The Senate then entered on Executive business; and the following message -was received and read, from the President of the United States: - - UNITED STATES, August 11, 1790. - - _Gentlemen of the Senate:_ - - Although the treaty with the Creeks may be regarded as the - main foundation of the future peace and prosperity of the - south-western frontier of the United States, yet, in order - fully to effect so desirable an object, the treaties which - have been entered into with the other tribes in that - quarter must be faithfully performed on our part. - - During the last year, I laid before the Senate a particular - statement of the case of the Cherokees. By a reference to - that paper it will appear, that the United States formed a - treaty with the Cherokees in November, 1785; that the said - Cherokees thereby placed themselves under the protection of - the United States, and had a boundary assigned them; that - the white people settled on the frontiers had openly - violated the said boundary, by intruding on the Indian - lands; that the United States, in Congress assembled, did - on the first day of September, 1788, issue their - proclamation, forbidding all such unwarrantable intrusions, - and enjoined all those who had settled upon the hunting - grounds of the Cherokees to depart with their families and - effects, without loss of time, as they would answer their - disobedience to the injunctions and prohibitions expressed, - at their peril. - - But information has been received that, notwithstanding the - said treaty and proclamation, upwards of five hundred - families have settled on the Cherokee lands, exclusively of - those settled between the fork of French Broad and Holstein - Rivers, mentioned in the said treaty. - - As the obstructions to a proper conduct on this matter have - been removed since it was mentioned to the Senate, on the - 22d of August, 1789, by the accession of North Carolina to - the present Union, and the cessions of the land in - question, I shall conceive myself bound to exert the powers - intrusted to me by the constitution, in order to carry into - faithful execution the treaty of Hopewell, unless it shall - be thought proper to attempt to arrange a new boundary with - the Cherokees, embracing the settlements, and compensating - the Cherokees for the cessions they shall make on the - occasion. On this point, therefore, I state the following - questions, and request the advice of the Senate thereon: - - 1st. Is it the judgment of the Senate that overtures shall - be made to the Cherokees to arrange a new boundary, so as - to embrace the settlements made by the white people since - the treaty of Hopewell, in November, 1785? - - 2d. If so, shall compensation, to the amount of ---- - dollars annually, or of ---- dollars in gross, be made to - the Cherokees for the land they shall relinquish, holding - the occupiers of the land accountable to the United States - for its value? - - 3d. Shall the United States stipulate solemnly to guarantee - the new boundary which may be arranged? - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - -Agreed, by unanimous consent, to proceed to the consideration of this -message. Whereupon, - - _Resolved_, That the Senate do advise and consent that the - President of the United States do, at his discretion, cause - the treaty concluded at Hopewell with the Cherokee Indians, - to be carried into execution, according to the terms - thereof, or to enter into arrangements for such further - cessions of territory, from the said Cherokee Indians, as - the tranquillity and interest of the United States may - require; provided the sum which may be stipulated to be - paid to the Cherokee Indians do not exceed one thousand - dollars annually; and provided, further, that no person who - shall have taken possession of any lands within territory - assigned to the said Cherokee Indians, by the said treaty - of Hopewell, shall be confirmed in any such possessions, - but by a compliance with such terms as Congress may - hereafter prescribe. - - _Resolved_, In case a new, or other boundary than that - stipulated by the treaty of Hopewell, shall be concluded - with the Cherokee Indians, that the Senate do advise and - consent solemnly to guarantee the same. - - -THURSDAY, August 12. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that -the House of Representatives having finished the business before them -are about to adjourn, agreeably to the vote of the two Houses of -Congress on Tuesday night. - -On motion, - - _Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of the Senate be - given to the corporation of the city of New York for the - elegant and convenient accommodations provided for - Congress, and that a copy of this resolve be enclosed in - the following letter from the Vice President: - - NEW YORK, August 12, 1790. - - SIR: It is with great pleasure, that, in obedience to an - order of the Senate of the United States, I have the honor - to enclose their resolution of this date, which was - unanimously agreed to; and, in behalf of the Senate, I - request that you will be pleased to communicate the same to - the corporation of the city, and, at the same time, signify - to them, that it is the wish of the Senate that the - corporation will permit such articles of furniture, &c. now - in the City Hall, as have been provided by Congress, to - remain for the use of that building. - - I am, sir, your most obedient humble servant, - - JOHN ADAMS, - _Vice President of the United States, - and President of the Senate._ - - To the Mayor of the city of New York. - -The Senate then entered on Executive business, and proceeded to consider -the message from the President of the United States, of the 7th of -August, 1790, communicating a treaty entered into with the Chiefs of the -Creek nation of Indians. - -And, on the question to advise and consent to the ratification of the -said treaty, made with the Creek nation, and referred to in the message -of the President of the United States, of the 7th of August, 1790; the -yeas and nays were required by one-fifth of the Senators present, and -were: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Carroll, Dalton, Ellsworth, Foster, Hawkins, - Henry, Johnson, Johnston, Izard, King, Lee, Paterson, Read, - Schuyler, and Stanton--15. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Butler, Few, Gunn, and Walker--4. - -The Senate resuming their Legislative character, - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that -the Senate having finished the Legislative business before them, are -about to adjourn, agreeably to the vote of both Houses of Congress of -the 10th instant. - -And the Vice President adjourned the Senate accordingly, to meet on the -first Monday in December next. - - - - -FIRST CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION. - -PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES - -IN - -THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. - - -MONDAY, January 4. - -The following is a list of the Members composing the House of -Representatives: - -New Hampshire--NICHOLAS GILMAN, SAMUEL LIVERMORE, and ABIEL FOSTER. - -Massachusetts--FISHER AMES, ELBRIDGE GERRY, BENJAMIN GOODHUE, JONATHAN -GROUT, GEORGE LEONARD, GEORGE PARTRIDGE, GEORGE THATCHER, and THEODORE -SEDGWICK. - -Connecticut--BENJAMIN HUNTINGTON, ROGER SHERMAN, JONATHAN STURGES, -JONATHAN TRUMBULL, and JEREMIAH WADSWORTH. - -New York--EGBERT BENSON, WILLIAM FLOYD, JOHN HATHORN, JEREMIAH VAN -RENSSELAER, JOHN LAWRENCE, and PETER SYLVESTER. - -New Jersey--ELIAS BOUDINOT, LAMBERT CADWALADER, JAMES SCHUREMAN, and -THOMAS SINNICKSON. - -Pennsylvania--GEORGE CLYMER, THOMAS FITZSIMONS, THOMAS HARTLEY, DANIEL -HEISTER, F. A. MUHLENBERG, _Speaker_, PETER MUHLENBERG, THOMAS SCOTT, -and HENRY WYNKOOP. - -Delaware--JOHN VINING. - -Maryland--DANIEL CARROLL, BENJAMIN CONTEE, GEORGE GALE, JOSHUA SENEY, -WILLIAM SMITH, and MICHAEL JENIFER STONE. - -Virginia--THEODORICK BLAND, JOHN BROWN, ISAAC COLES, SAMUEL GRIFFIN, -RICHARD BLAND LEE, JAMES MADISON, JUN., ANDREW MOORE, JOHN PAGE, -ALEXANDER WHITE, and JOSIAH PARKER. - -South Carolina--EDANUS BURKE, DANIEL HUGER, WILLIAM SMITH, THOMAS -SUMTER, and THOMAS TUDOR TUCKER. - -Georgia--ABRAHAM BALDWIN, JAMES JACKSON, and GEORGE MATHEWS. - -The SPEAKER and twenty-five other members, viz: Messrs. FOSTER, GILMAN, -LIVERMORE, AMES, GERRY, GOODHUE, GROUT, PARTRIDGE, THATCHER, SHERMAN, -BENSON, FLOYD, LAWRENCE, P. MUHLENBERG, SCOTT, SENEY, BROWN, COLES, -GRIFFIN, WHITE, BURKE, HUGER, SMITH, (of S. C.,) TUCKER, and BALDWIN, -appeared and took their seats; but not being a quorum, they adjourned. - - -TUESDAY, January 5. - -Mr. BOUDINOT took his seat.--No quorum. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 6. - -Mr. SCHUREMAN, Mr. PAGE, and Mr. LEE took their seats.--No quorum. - - -THURSDAY, January 7. - -JONATHAN STURGIS and JEREMIAH WADSWORTH, from Connecticut; JEREMIAH VAN -RENSSELAER, from New York; DANIEL CARROLL, from Maryland; and GEORGE -MATHEWS, from Georgia, appearing and taking their seats, a quorum of the -whole House was present; of which the Senate were informed. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the President of the -United States, of the 4th instant, requesting that when there shall be a -sufficient number of the two Houses of Congress assembled to proceed to -business, he may be informed of it; and, also, at what time and place it -will be convenient for Congress that he should meet them, in order to -make some oral communications at the commencement of their session; -which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. - -A message from the Senate informed the House, that they had appointed a -committee on their part, jointly with such committee as shall be -appointed on the part of the House, to wait on the President of the -United States, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses had -assembled, and will be ready, in the Senate Chamber, at such time as he -shall appoint, to receive any communications which he shall think proper -to make. - -Messrs. GILMAN, AMES, and SENEY, were then appointed a committee on the -part of the House for the purpose expressed in the message from the -Senate. - -It was then ordered, That a committee be appointed to examine the -Journal of the last session, and to report therefrom all such matters of -business as were then depending and undetermined, and a committee was -appointed, consisting of Messrs. BOUDINOT, SHERMAN, and WHITE. - - _Resolved_, That two Chaplains of different denominations - be appointed to Congress for the present session, one by - each House, who shall interchange weekly. - -_Ordered_, That the Clerk of the House do carry the said resolution to -the Senate, and desire their concurrence. - -Mr. GILMAN, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the -United States, pursuant to the order of this day, reported that they -had, according to order, performed that service, and that the President -was pleased to say he would attend to make his communications to both -Houses of Congress to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. - - -FRIDAY, January 8. - -HENRY WYNKOOP, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat. - -The Speaker and members present attended in the Senate Chamber, to -receive the President of the United States, who addressed both Houses. -His address will be found in the Proceedings of the Senate. - -The Speaker and the members of the House having returned from the -Senate, a copy of the President's speech was read, and committed to a -Committee of the whole House on to-morrow. - -The Journal was then read by the Clerk. - -Mr. BOUDINOT moved to correct the title by striking out all the words, -after declaring it merely the Journal of the House of Representatives. - -After some further desultory conversation, the title of the Journal was -established by a vote of the House, as follows: - -_Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States._ - - At a session of the Congress of United States, begun and - held at the city of New York, on Monday the 4th day of - January, 1790, being the second session of the First - Congress, held under the present Constitution of - Government, for the United States, being the day appointed - by law for the meeting of the present session. - -On the further reading of the Minutes, Mr. THATCHER observed, that a -call of the House which had taken place at the meeting was not entered -on the Journal. - -Mr. PAGE was sorry to find any gentleman insist upon the entry of a -measure which was not completed. He was concerned, likewise, that he had -not been here to answer to his name, but he was delayed seven days by -head winds, and two days by extreme badness of the roads. Under such -circumstances, he thought the gentlemen who were so fortunate as to get -here in time, deserved little more credit than those who were plunging -at the risk of their lives through almost insuperable difficulties. He -hoped it was not intended to stigmatize gentlemen who did not deserve -it. - -Mr. WHITE.--If the absentees were from the remote States, there would be -some indelicacy in ordering a call of the House at so early a period of -the session, because there might be natural unavoidable impediments to -prevent their punctual attendance, but he had observed, that the -absentees were mostly from the neighboring States, Connecticut, New -York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; and some of the members had -declared, they would not come until they were informed that there was a -House. Now, in order to make the Journal a true transcript of what had -really passed in the House, it was necessary to have this call inserted; -for the motion was regularly made, seconded, and carried; the absentees -were noted, and, after some time, they were called again, and those who -were known to be sick, or on their way, were apologized for, and -excused; here, indeed, the business terminated, and they were not -ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms. After these remarks, -he concluded by saying, that he did not move to have it inserted on the -Journal, and was unconcerned about it. - -Mr. LAWRENCE hoped the call would not be entered on the Journal, if it -was intended to reproach the conduct of the absent members, for he was -very well satisfied in his own mind, that few, if any, of them were -guilty of neglecting their duty. - -Mr. WADSWORTH likewise hoped the entry would not be made. He had left -home a week ago, but had been detained by head winds. He dared to say -that this would be found to be the case with respect to a number of -other gentlemen; and as far as his knowledge went with relation to such -as were absent, it was on necessary occasions. - -Mr. PARTRIDGE did not wish to stigmatize any gentleman by an entry of -this kind on the Journals. He meant simply that the fact should appear -as it really happened in the House; however, as the business had not -been completed, he would withdraw his second to the motion for having -the entry made. - -Mr. PAGE said, no new stigma could be received by him or his colleague, -(Mr. LEE.) By the entry on the Journals, it appeared they were not here -on Monday or Tuesday, but on Wednesday it is said that John Page and R. -B. Lee appeared, and took their seats; consequently, what he had said -could not be construed to favor himself or his colleague, but it was -generally for those who had not been able to get here so soon. - -The motion for entering on the Journals the call of the House, was -withdrawn. - - -SATURDAY, January 9. - -GEORGE CLYMER, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat. - -_Secretary of the Treasury's Report._ - -A letter from Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, was read, -informing the House that, agreeably to their resolution of the 21st of -September, he had prepared a Plan for the support of the Public Credit, -and that he was ready to report the same to this House, when they should -be pleased to receive it. - -It was proposed that Thursday next be assigned for this purpose. - -Mr. GERRY wished to add to the motion, that it should be made in -writing. - -Mr. BOUDINOT hoped that the Secretary of the Treasury might be permitted -to make his report in person, in order to answer such inquiries as the -members might be disposed to make, for it was a justifiable surmise that -gentlemen would not be able clearly to comprehend so intricate a subject -without oral illustration. - -Mr. CLYMER expressed some doubts with respect to the propriety of -receiving oral communications from the head of such an important -department. He was rather inclined to think that such communications -ought to be in writing. - -Mr. AMES conceived it to be the duty of the House to obtain the best -information on any subject; but on this very important one they ought to -be particularly careful to get it from the highest source. The Secretary -of the Treasury is a most important and responsible officer; the -delicacy of his situation required every indulgence to be extended to -him, that had a tendency to enable him to complete the arduous -undertaking in which he was engaged. It would be a real misfortune that -a salutary measure should be defeated for want of being understood; yet -the most advantageous plans may miscarry in their passage through this -House, by reason of their not being clearly comprehended. He hoped, -therefore, that the financier would be authorized to make such -communications and illustrations as he judged necessary; but he wished -these communications to be in writing; in this shape they would obtain a -degree of permanency favorable to the responsibility of the officer, -while, at the same time, they would be less liable to be misunderstood. - -Mr. BENSON observed, that the Secretary of the Treasury was directed, by -a resolution of the last session, to prepare a plan for the support of -public credit, and to report the same at this meeting. The point to be -settled is whether it shall be done by an oral communication, or -transmitted in writing? In the former order of the House, this point was -untouched, and the Secretary was left at his discretion to prepare -himself for reporting in either way; consequently when we have fixed the -time for receiving his report, he may make it in the manner for which he -is prepared; but no doubt, this officer, actuated by motives of -deference and respect, will conform to any rule the House may think -proper to enjoin. - -Mr. GERRY conceived it would be necessary the Secretary should be -authorized, by a vote of the House, to give explanations to his plans. -This, he was not expressly authorized to do by the vote of the last -session, which confined him merely to prepare a plan for support of the -public credit. Would any gentleman on this floor suppose himself -capable of comprehending and combining the parts of a general system, -calculated to produce such a grand effect? In a plan for supporting -public credit may be comprehended every species of finance. The -Secretary, under such an order, may propose an extension of your impost -to entire new articles, an increase of some, and a diminution upon -others. He may propose an introduction of a system of excise; with all -these he may combine duties, stamps, and direct taxes. Can the human -mind retain, with any great degree of decision, objects so extensive and -multifarious upon a mere oral communication? This consideration alone -ought to be sufficient to induce gentlemen to agree to his proposition -of making the report in writing; but his proposition extended still -further, it went to give him a right to lay before them his -explanations, if he thinks explanations necessary. - -On the question, the resolution for receiving the report of the -Secretary of the Treasury in writing, was carried in the affirmative. - - -_President's Speech._ - -On motion, the House now resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole -on the President's Speech. Mr. BALDWIN in the chair. - -Mr. SMITH (of S. C.) proposed a resolution that an address be presented -to the President, in answer to his Speech to both Houses, assuring him -that this House will, without delay, proceed to take into their serious -consideration the various and important matters recommended to their -attention. - -Mr. WHITE thought this motion hardly sufficient; it was too general to -warrant a select committee to draft that particular reply which he hoped -the House was disposed to make to every part of the President's speech; -he therefore begged the gentleman to withdraw it, and permit him to -substitute one in its stead, which he read in his place. - -Mr. BOUDINOT thought the proposition just read by the honorable -gentleman from Virginia much superior to that proposed by his worthy -friend from South Carolina. It must have struck every gentleman that -there were other matters contained in the Speech deserving of notice, -besides those recommended to their serious consideration. There was -information of the recent accession of the important State of North -Carolina to the Constitution of the United States. This event ought to -be recognized in a particular manner, according to its importance; and -he presumed to think that its importance was of the very first -magnitude. - -A desultory conversation now took place on amending the original -proposition in such a manner as to embrace generally the subjects of the -speech; when, at length, it was amended to read as follows: - - _Resolved_, As the sense of this committee, that an address - be presented by the House to the President of the United - States, in answer to his speech to both Houses, with - assurances that this House will, without delay, proceed to - take into consideration the various and important matters - recommended to their attention. - -Whereupon Messrs. SMITH, (of S. C.,) CLYMER, and LAWRENCE, were -appointed a committee to prepare the said address. - - -MONDAY, January 11. - -JONATHAN TRUMBULL, from Connecticut; JOHN HATHORN, from New York; and -ANDREW MOORE, from Virginia, appeared, and took their seats. - -_Answer to the President's Speech._ - -Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina,) from the committee appointed for the -purpose of preparing an address in answer to the President's speech, -presented a report; which being read, - -Mr. PAGE moved to go into a Committee of the Whole on the same -to-morrow, which was agreed to. - - -TUESDAY, January 12. - -Agreeably to the order of the day the House resolved itself into a -Committee of the Whole on the address in answer to the President's -speech to both Houses. - -Mr. BALDWIN being placed in the chair, the address was read as follows: - -_The Address of the House of Representatives to the President of the -United States._ - - The Representatives of the people of the United States have - taken into consideration your speech to both Houses of - Congress at the opening of the present session. - - We reciprocate your congratulations on the accession of - North Carolina; an event which, while it is a testimony of - the increasing good-will towards the Government of the - Union, cannot fail to give additional dignity and strength - to the American Republic, already rising in the estimation - of the world in national character and respectability. - - The information that our measures of the last session have - not proved dissatisfactory to our constituents, affords us - much encouragement at this juncture, when we are resuming - the arduous task of legislating for so extensive an empire. - - Nothing can be more gratifying to the representatives of a - free people than the reflection, that their labors are - rewarded by the approbation of their fellow-citizens. Under - this impression, we shall make every exertion to realize - their expectations, and to secure to them those blessings - which Providence has placed within their reach. Still - prompted by the same desire to promote their interests - which then actuated us, we shall, in the present session, - diligently and anxiously pursue those measures which shall - appear to us conducive to that end. - - We concur with you in the sentiment that agriculture, - commerce, and manufactures, are entitled to legislative - protection, and that the promotion of science and - literature will contribute to the security of a free - Government; in the progress of our deliberations, we shall - not lose sight of objects so worthy of our regard. - - The various and weighty matters which you have judged - necessary to recommend to our attention, appear to us - essential to the tranquillity and welfare of the Union, and - claim our early and most serious consideration. We shall - proceed, without delay, to bestow on them that calm - discussion which their importance requires. - - We regret that the pacific arrangements pursued with regard - to certain hostile tribes of Indians, have not been - attended with that success which we had reason to expect - from them; we shall not hesitate to concur in such further - measures as may best obviate any ill effects which might be - apprehended from the failure of those negotiations. - - Your approbation of the vote of this House at the last - session, respecting the provision for the public creditors, - is very acceptable to us: the proper mode of carrying that - resolution into effect, being a subject in which the future - character and happiness of these States are deeply - involved, will be among the first to claim our attention. - - The prosperity of the United States is the primary object - of all our deliberations, and we cherish the reflection, - that every measure which we may adopt for its advancement, - will not only receive your cheerful concurrence, but will - at the same time derive from your co-operation additional - efficacy in insuring to our fellow-citizens the blessings - of a free, efficient, and equal Government. - - FRED'K A. MUHLENBERG, - - _Speaker of the House of Representatives_. - -Mr. BOUDINOT moved to strike out at the beginning of the third paragraph -"the information," because the House were possessed of this knowledge by -other means: they had, during the recess of Congress, an opportunity of -consulting their constituents, and could therefore say of their own -motion, that the measures of the last session have not proved -dissatisfactory. - -Mr. CLYMER, as one of the committee appointed to prepare a report, had -agreed to the address, but he did not think himself precluded from -agreeing to what he supposed would be an amendment. The words appeared -to him necessary, as they were strongly implied, inasmuch as the address -was in answer to the speech of the President, which really contained -such information. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) contended, that the House had no -information with respect to the satisfaction their constituents -experienced in the measures of the last session, except what was -contained in the President's speech. He did not presume to deny, but -every individual member of Congress might have received information of -this nature in private conversation with the people, but no official -communication could possibly be got at; it was therefore necessary to -recognize, in the address, the quarter from whence they drew that -information; in this view he considered the words necessary, and hoped -they would be retained. - -Mr. BOUDINOT meant to avoid the idea that it was from the Executive -alone they drew this information, when it was a notorious fact, -perceptible to common observation. - -Mr. LAWRENCE said, the Executive was the proper source to draw such -information from, and he was very happy to learn it from so respectable -a quarter; he therefore hoped it would be permitted to remain in the -report. - -The question was now taken for striking out the words, and it passed in -the negative. - -It was then moved to strike out, in the first line of the fourth -paragraph, the word "gratifying" and insert "grateful." - -Mr. WADSWORTH did not mean to call in question the right of gentlemen to -amend the address in what manner they thought proper, but he would just -remark, that the composition of two or three gentlemen, done with -deliberation and coolness, generally had more elegance and pertinency, -than the patchwork of a large assembly. He should therefore vote against -every alteration that went to nothing more than to change the style; if -gentlemen were disposed to contend for principle, he should listen to -them with attention, and decide according to the best of his judgment, -but he really conceived it to be a waste of time to discuss the -propriety of two such terms as grateful and gratifying. - -Mr. PAGE hoped that gentlemen would proceed to amend the address in such -a way as to give it the highest degree of perfection. He would rather -have his feelings hurt, provided they could be said to be hurt by -changing the language of his most favorite production, than that an -address should go from this body with any incorrectness whatever. He -hoped the House would always criticise upon, strike out and amend, -whatever matter was before them with boldness and freedom. And he would -observe to gentlemen, that the most refined and accurate writers were -never ashamed to have it said of them, that they blotted out. - -Mr. WHITE said, that every gentleman had an undoubted right to take the -sense of the House upon an amendment, and that it ought not to be -considered as a reflection upon those who drew up the address. - -Mr. WADSWORTH did not pretend to be a critic, but thought he understood -the meaning of the words gratifying and grateful, and he conceived the -difference to be too trifling to engage the attention of the House. He -hoped that he had been as modest as a man could be in his observations, -and was sorry to have drawn his worthy friend from Virginia into any -severities. - -Mr. THATCHER apprehend the meaning of these two words to be the same, -and the reception of either was only important as it related to the -measure or harmony of the period. Now those gentlemen who are qualified -to decide this point, might vote for the substitute; but for his part he -was very well satisfied with it as it stood. - -Mr. STURGES wished the sentence struck out altogether, because he did -not conceive the assertion to be true; for he did believe that there was -something which could and ought to be more gratifying to the -representatives of a free people than the reflection that their labors -are rewarded by the approbation of their fellow-citizens; to be sure it -was a grateful reflection, but there was one much more so, which was, -that their labors had tended to advance the real interests of the -people. If it is, as it ought to be, our highest ambition to promote the -general interest, it must be most gratifying to us to learn that we have -attained that desirable end. - -Mr. PAGE had only heard some expressions from the gentleman from -Connecticut (Mr. WADSWORTH) which he imagined had a tendency to -discourage the House from making necessary alterations; but he was -convinced, from the known candor and impartiality of that gentleman, -that he must not have fully comprehended his intentions, and therefore -begged to apologize to him for any thing he might have said partaking of -severity. - -The question was now put for striking out "gratifying" and inserting -"grateful," and passed in the negative. - -The committee then agreed to the report, rose, and the Chairman reported -it without amendment. - -Mr. Speaker being seated in the chair, the address was read again and -unanimously agreed to by the House. - -It was then moved that a committee be appointed to wait on the President -of the United States, to learn from him at what time, and in what place -he would receive this address. Messrs. SMITH, (of South Carolina,) -CLYMER, and LAWRENCE, were appointed the committee on this occasion. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 13. - -BENJAMIN HUNTINGTON, from Connecticut; LAMBERT CADWALADER, from New -Jersey; DANIEL HEISTER, from Pennsylvania, and WILLIAM SMITH, from -Maryland, appeared and took their seats. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) reported that the President would be ready -to receive their address to-morrow at 12 o'clock. - - -THURSDAY, January 14. - -THEODORE SEDGWICK, from Massachusetts, and THOMAS HARTLEY, from -Pennsylvania, appeared and took their seats. - -The House then went and presented the address to the President, to which -the President was pleased to make the following reply: - - _Gentlemen:_ - - I receive, with pleasure, the assurances you give me, that - you will diligently and anxiously pursue such measures as - shall appear to you conducive to the interests of your - constituents; and that an early and serious consideration - will be given to the various and weighty matters - recommended by me to your attention. - - I have fall confidence that your deliberations will - continue to be directed by an enlightened and virtuous zeal - for the happiness of our country. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - -FRIDAY, January 15. - -JAMES JACKSON, from Georgia, appeared and took his seat. - -Mr. HARTLEY moved an adjournment, when - -Mr. PAGE rose and said, he wished to call the attention of the House, -before they adjourned, to a subject which he thought of importance, and -which ought no longer to be in the undecided state it had been in since -the last session; it was this, whether the persons who had taken down -and published the debates of the House, by the tacit consent of the -members during the last session, and who had withdrawn from the seats -they then held in the House, to the gallery, during this session, might -not return to the same seats. He supposed that they had modestly -withdrawn, on the supposition that the debate which took place just -before the adjournment, showed that the sense of the members was against -their sitting in the House; but the contrary was the case; that he knew -their publications had given great satisfaction to many of the -constituents of that House; that the House was applauded for its conduct -on that occasion, both at home and abroad, and had been highly commended -for it in some British publications; that he was anxious that the -short-hand writers should resume their seats in the House, lest it might -be insinuated by the jealous enemies of our Government, that the House -of Representatives were more republican and indulgent the last session -than this; that removing those writers to the gallery, was but a step -towards removing them from the House, and that this suspicion would be -increased by circumstances which, however innocent, nay proper in -themselves, might be misunderstood and excite uneasiness. The doors of -the gallery had been two days shut, the House had made a parade through -the streets, and had displayed their eagle in their hall; that these -circumstances, if followed by the exclusion of the short-hand writers, -might spread an alarm which ought to be avoided; he therefore hoped that -those gentlemen who had retired to the gallery might be informed that -they might return to the seats they occupied in the last session--that -he avoided making a regular motion to this effect, because he knew that -some worthy members who wished to admit those writers, or any others, -did not think their admission ought to be sanctioned by vote, and appear -on the journals, lest that might sanction and authenticate erroneous -publications; but that if he should not discover that the sense of the -members present was in favor of the ideas he had expressed, that -to-morrow he would bring forward a motion made by a member from South -Carolina, (Mr. TUCKER,) last session, for that purpose, for he had no -fears that a vote of the House to authorize the admission of such -writers, would make the House answerable for their publications. - -Mr. HARTLEY withdrew his motion for adjournment, in order that the -subject alluded to by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. PAGE) might be -understood. - -Mr. WHITE said, he felt averse to enter into a positive resolution for -the admission of any person to take down the debates, but wished them -permitted to a convenient seat within the bar for the purpose of hearing -with greater accuracy. But he feared that a vote of the House would give -a sanction to the details, which the publications ought not to have. Not -that he thought them worse than similar publications in other countries; -on the contrary, he thought them better, if he judged from what had -fallen under his particular observation, and what he recollected to have -from others. He did not wish a positive motion for the admission of -short-hand writers, because gentlemen might object to a vote of the -kind, and he should be very loth to discourage publications of the -advantages of which he was well convinced; he knew they had given great -satisfaction to the people of America, and it was a satisfaction of -which he would not deprive them. Although these publications had not -given an exact and accurate detail of all that passed in Congress, yet -their information had been pretty full, and he believed the errors not -very many; those that were made, he supposed to arise rather from haste -or inadvertence, than from design. He was convinced of this, from the -disposition the publishers had manifested to correct any errors that -were pointed out, and the pains they sometimes took to ask gentlemen -what were their particular expressions, when they either did not hear -distinctly, or did not comprehend the speaker's meaning. He wished, -therefore, the business might go on; but silently, as it had heretofore -done, without the express approbation of the House. He was fully -convinced, that neither the editor of the Register, nor any other man, -but the members of the House, had a right to a seat within those walls, -without the consent of every member; but he thought this consent would -be tacitly given if no gentleman opposed their introduction, and in this -way he most heartily concurred with his colleague in agreeing to the -admission of such persons as thought themselves qualified, and were -inclined to take down and publish their debates and proceedings; he -should be glad to see them in the seats they had last session, but he -should object to the vote being entered on the journals of the House. - -Mr. BOUDINOT thought the mode proper to be pursued on this occasion, -would be to give a discretionary power to the Speaker to admit such -persons as he thought proper. Under such a regulation, short-hand -writers might be admitted, without giving to their publications any -degree of legislative authority. - -Mr. THATCHER hoped that it was not the intention of gentlemen to confine -the business to one person only, because others might appear of equal -capacity, and equally deserving of encouragement. - -Mr. PAGE said, he did not wish to confine the vote to any two or three -writers, he cared not how many were admitted. It ought to be remembered, -that he said, when this subject was before the House at the last -session, that he saw no reason why Mr. FENNO should not be within the -House as well as Mr. LLOYD, instead of being in the gallery. He had no -objection to admitting any number of short-hand writers, provided they -did not incommode the members. - -Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to exclude -others from a convenient seat; but at the same time, I think those who -were here before, have a pre-emption right to the best. I assure you, -sir, I am sorry for the loss of them off the floor, because I think -their publications had a salutary tendency. It has been said, that it -was the design of the short-hand writers to give a partial -representation of our proceedings. I believe, if they are not correctly -given, it is owing to the hurry in which business of this kind is -conducted, and I am confirmed in this opinion, by some errors which I -have discovered in the publication of our proceedings. It was said that -a committee was appointed to bring in a bill for the preservation and -safe-keeping of the _accounts_ of the United States. I thought within -myself that we were not so tenacious on this head, therefore suspected -some mistake, and on consulting the journals I found that a committee -had been appointed to bring in a bill for the safe-keeping and -preservation of the _acts_ of the United States. The similarity of the -letters in those two words, and the great abridgment short-hand writers -are obliged to make for the sake of expedition, may have caused him to -substitute the one for the other. In another place I found a greater -blunder still; it was said, that the House had appointed a committee for -the regulation of the _barbers_ of the United States; this struck me as -a very gross misrepresentation, for I could hardly believe that the -Legislature of the Union would, at so early a day, attempt to usurp an -authority not vested in them by the constitution, and that, too, over a -body of men who could at any time put an end to the tyranny with the -edge of the razor; but on searching the minutes in this case, I found -that a bill was brought in for the regulation of the _harbors_ of the -United States. Upon the whole, I believe, inaccurate as this work is, it -has given to our constituents great satisfaction, and I should be glad -to see our _Argus_ restored to his former situation behind the Speaker's -chair, from whence he could both see and hear distinctly every thing -that passed in the House. - - -TUESDAY, January 19. - -The bill for enumerating the inhabitants of the United States was read a -second time, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 20. - -JAMES MADISON and JOSIAH PARKER, from Virginia, appeared and took their -seats. - - -THURSDAY, January 21. - -GEORGE LEONARD, from Massachusetts, PETER SYLVESTER, from New York, and -THOMAS FITZSIMONS, from Pennsylvania, appeared and took their seats. - - -MONDAY, January 25. - -_Census of the Union._ - -The House resolved into Committee of the Whole on the bill providing for -the actual enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States, Mr. -BALDWIN in the chair. - -Mr. MADISON observed, that they had now an opportunity of obtaining the -most useful information for those who should hereafter be called upon to -legislate for their country, if this bill was extended so as to embrace -some other objects besides the bare enumeration of the inhabitants; it -would enable them to adapt the public measures to the particular -circumstances of the community. In order to know the various interests -of the United States, it was necessary that the description of the -several classes into which the community is divided should be accurately -known. On this knowledge the Legislature might proceed to make a proper -provision for the agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing interests, -but without it they could never make their provisions in due proportion. - -This kind of information, he observed, all Legislatures had wished for; -but this kind of information had never been obtained in any country. He -wished, therefore, to avail himself of the present opportunity of -accomplishing so valuable a purpose. If the plan was pursued in taking -every future census, it would give them an opportunity of marking the -progress of the society, and distinguishing the growth of every -interest. This would furnish ground for many useful calculations, and at -the same time answer the purpose of a check on the officers who were -employed to make the enumeration; forasmuch as the aggregate number is -divided into parts, any imposition might be discovered with -proportionable ease. If these ideas meet the approbation of the House, -he hoped they would pass over the schedule in the second clause of the -bill, and he would endeavor to prepare something to accomplish this -object. - -The committee hereupon agreed to pass over the part of the bill alluded -to. - -Mr. LIVERMORE moved to amend the last clause of the bill, by striking -out all that related to the mode of compensating the Marshal and his -assistants, which were specified sums, proportioned to the service, and -to substitute a provision, authorizing the Marshal, or his assistants, -to receive from every male white inhabitant above the age of twenty-one, -five cents; and of the owner of every male slave, of like age, three -cents; reserving, for his own use, four cents out of every five, and -paying the other one cent to the Marshal. He thought this was an -equitable tax, agreeable to the spirit of the constitution; that it -might be collected with safety and satisfaction; while, on the other -hand, the mode proposed in the bill would be extremely inconvenient; it -would draw a considerable sum out of the Treasury, which their present -situation did not enable them to spare. - -On the question this motion was lost. - -The committee then, after making some small amendments, rose and -reported progress. - - -THURSDAY, January 28. - -_Report of the Secretary of the Treasury._ - -Mr. AMES observed, that the subject of the Secretary's report, on the -means of promoting public credit, is the order for this day; but when I -consider the circumstances under which this order was entered into, I am -inclined to wish for an extension of the time. It will be recollected -that this report was ordered to be printed, in order that the members -might have it in their hands for consideration; when this was done, it -was expected that the printing would be more expeditiously executed than -the event has demonstrated it could be, of consequence our time for -deliberation has been curtailed; and those gentlemen who were against so -early a day before, will think the present rather premature. In order to -accommodate them, I shall move you a longer day than otherwise I might -be disposed to do; and if I am seconded, I move that the order of the -day be postponed till next Monday week. - -Mr. JACKSON.--The report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Speaker, -embraces subjects of the utmost magnitude, which ought not to be lightly -taken up, or hastily concluded upon. It appears to me to contain two -important objects, worthy of our most serious and indefatigable -disquisition. The first is, that all idea of discrimination among the -public creditors, as original holders and transferees, ought to be done -away; and on this head, I must own to you, sir, that I formerly -coincided in something like the same opinion, but circumstances have -occurred, to make me almost a convert to the other. Since this report -has been read in this House, a spirit of havoc, speculation, and ruin, -has arisen, and been cherished by people who had an access to the -information the report contained, that would have made a _Hastings_ -blush to have been connected with, though long inured to preying on the -vitals of his fellow-men. Three vessels, sir, have sailed within a -fortnight from this port, freighted for speculation; they are intended -to purchase up the State and other securities in the hands of the -uninformed, though honest citizens of North Carolina, South Carolina, -and Georgia. My soul rises indignant at the avaricious and moral -turpitude which so vile a conduct displays. - -Then, sir, as to the other object of the report, the assumption of the -State debts by the General Government, it is a question of delicacy as -well as importance. The States ought to be consulted on this point, some -of them may be against the measure, but surely it will be prudent in us -to delay deciding upon a subject that may give umbrage to the community. -For my part, before I decide, I should be glad to know the sentiments of -the Legislature of the State from which I come, and whether it would, in -their opinion, be more conducive to the general and particular interests -of these United States, than retaining them on their present footing. I -trust I am not singular on this point; for gentlemen desirous of -deciding on full information, will not only wish for the sense of the -Legislatures of the several States, but of every individual also. -Perhaps gentlemen of the neighboring States may think it proper to take -up this business at an early day, because they can learn the desires of -their constituents in a short time; but let those gentlemen consider for -a moment, that the distant States ought to have an equal opportunity, -and we cannot hear the voice of Georgia in a week, nor a month. I should -therefore be as much in the dark on Monday week, as I am at present; I -would wish, if the postponement is intended to answer any valuable -purpose, that it should be extended to a longer period. I think the -first Monday in May would be sufficiently soon to enter upon it, and -shall therefore move it. In this time, the State Legislatures may have -convened, and be able to give us their sentiments on a subject in which -they are so deeply concerned. - -Mr. BOUDINOT agreed with the honorable gentleman who was last up, that -this subject is a matter of the highest importance, and worthy of due -deliberation; that speculation had risen to an alarming height; but this -consideration bade him to be in favor of the only measure which could -put a stop to the evil, that is, appreciating the public debt, till the -evidences in the hands of the creditors came to their proper value. I -also agree, said he, with the gentleman, that it would be a desirable -thing to have the sense of the State Legislatures, and every part of the -community, because it would tend to elucidate the subject; but we should -not be led by visionary pursuits to defer a business of this magnitude -too long. I think we may go into a Committee of the Whole on Monday -week, without coming to a final determination; but if it is put off for -a long period, it will cause a still greater fluctuation in the market, -and increase those circumstances which the honorable gentleman laments -as injurious to the peace and happiness of the community. We had better, -therefore, look the business in the face, take it into consideration, -and go through it deliberately; but, at the same time, as expeditiously -as the novelty of our circumstances will admit. In this way also we may -acquire information, because we obtain more from listening to each -other's sentiments, than we can procure from any other source. But if, -after all, gentlemen should find themselves unprepared on Monday week, -the business may be postponed to a further day. But I would by no means -consent to lose sight of it for so long a period as from now till May. - -Mr. JACKSON.--If the members of this body had known the plan in -contemplation, and they had had an opportunity of consulting their -constituents on the subject, then, I venture to say, this demon of -speculation would not have extended its baleful influence over the -remote parts of the Union. It arose and seized on us by surprise, -advantages are taken without any warning, and such as cannot but -exasperate. But, sir, waiving all these reflections, let us recollect -that the State of North Carolina forms a part of this Union; this -measure is to affect her, as well as the States who are represented on -this floor. Shall we then proceed without them? Her citizens are -indubitably as much concerned in the event as others, and will you bind -her in a case of this importance, when she has not a single -Representative within these walls? If no other consideration can induce -gentlemen to defer this business, deference to a sister State who has so -lately acceded to the Union ought. But, in addition to this, I contend -that the State Legislatures ought to be consulted; and I declare myself, -that I shall not know how to vote until I learn the sense of my -constituents. If we consent to this proper and reasonable delay, our -constituents will be prepared for our decisions, and a stop will be put -to the speculation; or if any man burns his fingers, which I hope to -God, with all the warmth of a feeling heart, they may, they will only -have their own cupidity to blame. The people will then generally remain -satisfied, under the general assurance, that Congress will pursue proper -measures for the support of public credit, and little or no evil can be -apprehended; but much substantial good may arise from a delay of a few -months. - -Mr. SHERMAN hoped the business would be conducted in such a way as to be -concluded before the end of the present session. As to obtaining the -sense of the State Legislatures, he did not think that necessary. The -people appointed the members of this House, and their situation enabled -them to consult and judge better what was for the public good, than a -number of distinct parts, void of relative information, and under the -influence of local views. He supposed that Congress contained all the -information necessary to determine this or any other national question. -As to the first observation of the gentleman from Georgia, that -speculations had been carried on to a great extent, he had only to -observe, that this had been the case from the time when the public -securities were first issued, and he supposed they would continue until -the holders were satisfied with what was done to secure the payment. - -As to the State debts, it was a subject which he apprehended would not -be ultimately decided, till the sense of the people is generally known; -and on this occasion, it might be well to be acquainted with the sense -of the State Legislatures; he hoped, therefore, that it would be the -case. But with regard to the foreign and domestic continental debts, he -did not hesitate to say, it was proper for Congress to take them into -consideration as speedily as possible; for the sooner they are -discussed, the sooner will the House make up there judgment thereon. He -believed they were possessed of all the facts they could be possessed -of, and therefore any great delay was improper. He was in favor of -making the business the order of the day for Monday week. - -Mr. SEDGWICK.--I believe the House at present have not come to a -conclusion in their own opinion, on the various circumstances which are -necessary to be attended to in the report of the Secretary of the -Treasury; therefore, I think some delay is necessary, but it should be -as early a day as we could act upon it understandingly. The ardent -expectations of the people on this subject want no other demonstration -than the numerous body of citizens assembled within these walls.[32] And -while the public expectation is kept thus alive and in suspense, -gentlemen cannot but suppose designs will be framed and prosecuted that -may be injurious to the community. For, although I do not believe that -speculation, to a certain degree, is baneful in its effects upon -society, yet, when it is extended too far, it becomes a real evil, and -requires the administration to divert or suppress it. If the capital -employed in merchandise is taken from that branch of the public -interest, and employed in speculations no way useful in increasing the -labor of the community, such speculation would be pernicious. The -employment of the time of merchants in this way, in addition to the -employment of their capital, is a serious and alarming circumstance. A -spirit of gambling is of such evil tendency, that every legislative -endeavor should be made to suppress it. From these considerations, I -take it, Mr. Speaker, that there are two things very evident; first, -that the postponement should be so long as to enable us to enter upon -the task with understanding; and that this pernicious temper, or spirit -of speculation, should be counteracted at as early a period as can -possibly take place. - -Mr. GERRY.--I am a friend to the postponement, Mr. Speaker, though not -for so long a time as the gentleman from Georgia proposes. It will be -agreed, on all hands, that public credit is the main pillar on which -this Government is to stand; but so embarrassed are our finances, that -they require both time and consideration for their due arrangement. - -With respect to the suppression of speculation, I do not conceive that -possible, by either a longer or a shorter postponement. Does any -gentleman expect, while we have a public debt, to prevent speculation in -our funds? If they do, they expect to accomplish what never was -effected by any nation, nor, in my opinion, ever will be. But if they -could accomplish it, they would do an injury to the community; for -speculation gives a currency to property that would lie dormant; all -public debts would hereafter be contracted on terms ruinous to the -debtors. As to the policy of speculation, I doubt whether the -speculation of foreigners in our funds is not rather advantageous than -disadvantageous to the community. If we look abroad, and judge by -comparative reasoning, we shall be led to believe that nations derive -great advantages from being possessed of the money of foreigners; they -not only endeavor to acquire it by direct, but also by indirect loans. -During the late war, the Dutch held 40 or 50,000,000 sterling, in the -funds of Great Britain, and she was sensible of the benefit. The -speculations of individuals have perhaps been of the greatest advantage -to those who held public securities, by giving a circulation to the -certificates. Hence it has been thought that a public debt is a source -of great emolument to a nation, by extending its capital, and enlarging -the operations of productive industry. - -Mr. JACKSON.--I know, sir, that there is, and will be, speculation in -the funds of every nation possessed of public debt; but they are not -such as the present report has given rise to, by the advantage those at -the seat of Government obtained of learning the plan contemplated by the -principal of the Treasury Department, before others had heard a word -thereof. If we had either received this report privately, or not sat in -a large city, then, sir, none of these speculations would have arisen, -because Congress could have devised means of diffusing the information -so generally as to prevent any of its ill effects. Under these -impressions, I am led to express my ardent wish to God, that we had been -on the banks of the Susquehanna or Potomac, or at any place in the -woods, and out of the neighborhood of a populous city; all my -unsuspecting fellow-citizens might then have been warned of their -danger, and guarded themselves against the machinations of the -speculators. To some gentlemen, characters of this kind may appear to be -of utility; but I, sir, view them in a different light; they are as -rapacious wolves, seeking whom they may devour, and preying upon the -misfortunes of their fellow-men, taking an undue advantage of their -necessities. This, sir, is the sentiment of my heart, and I will always -use its language. I say, sir, whatever might be the happy effects of -speculation in other countries, it has had the most unhappy and -pernicious effects in this. Look at the gallant veteran, who nobly led -your martial bands in the hour of extreme danger, whose patriotic soul -acknowledged no other principle than that his life was the property of -his country, and who evinced it by his repeated exposures to a vengeful -enemy. See him deprived of those limbs, which he sacrificed in your -service! and behold his virtuous and tender wife sustaining him and his -children in a wilderness, lonely, exposed to the arms of savages, where -he and his family have been driven by these useful class of citizens, -these speculators, who have drained from him the pittance which a -grateful country had afforded him, in reward for his bravery and toils, -and a long catalogue of merits. Nor is their insatiable avarice yet -satisfied, while there remains a single class of citizens who retain the -evidence of their demands upon the public; the State debts are to become -an object for them to prey upon, until other citizens are driven into -scenes of equal distress. Is it not the duty of the House to check this -spirit of devastation? It most assuredly is. If by the ill-timed -promulgation of this report, we have laid the foundation for the -calamity, ought we not to counteract it? This may be done by postponing -the subject, until the sense of the State Legislatures is obtained, with -respect to their particular debts. Then these men may send off other -vessels to countermand their former orders; and, perhaps, we may yet -save the distant inhabitants from being plundered by these harpies. - - -MONDAY, February 1. - -GEORGE GALE, from Maryland, appeared and took his seat. - - -TUESDAY, February 2. - -THEODORE BLAND, from Virginia, appeared and took his seat. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 3. - -The engrossed bill for enumerating the inhabitants of the United States -was read the third time, and then ordered to lie on the table. - -_Rule of Naturalization._ - -The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill -establishing a uniform rule of Naturalization, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair. -The first clause enacted, that all free white persons, who have, or -shall migrate into the United States, and shall give satisfactory proof, -before a magistrate, by oath, that they intend to reside therein, and -shall take an oath of allegiance, _and shall have resided in the United -States for one whole year_, shall be entitled to all the rights of -citizenship, except being capable of holding an office under the State -or General Government, which capacity they are to acquire after a -residence of two years more. - -Mr. TUCKER moved to strike out the words "and shall have resided within -the United States for one whole year;" because he conceived it the -policy of America to enable foreigners to hold lands, in their own -right, in less than one year; he had no objection to extending the term, -entitling them to hold an office under Government, to three years. In -short, the object of his motion was, to let aliens come in, take the -oath, and hold lands without any residence at all. - -Mr. HARTLEY said, he had no doubt of the policy of admitting aliens to -the rights of citizenship; but he thought some security for their -fidelity and allegiance was requisite besides the bare oath; that is, he -thought an actual residence of such a length of time as would give a man -an opportunity of esteeming the Government from knowing its intrinsic -value, was essentially necessary to assure us of a man's becoming a -citizen. The practice of almost every State in the Union countenanced a -regulation of this nature; and perhaps it was owing to a wish of this -kind, that the States had consented to give this power to the General -Government. The terms of citizenship are made too cheap in some parts of -the Union; to say, that a man shall be admitted to all the privileges of -a citizen, without any residence at all, is what can hardly be expected. - -The policy of the old nations of Europe has drawn a line between -citizens and aliens: that policy has existed to our knowledge ever since -the foundation of the Roman Empire; experience has proved its propriety, -or we should have found some nation deviating from a regulation inimical -to its welfare. From this it may be inferred, that we ought not to grant -this privilege on terms so easy as is moved by the gentleman from South -Carolina. If he had gone no further in his motion than to give aliens a -right to purchase and hold lands, the objection would not have been so -great; but if the words are stricken out that he has moved for, an alien -will be entitled to join in the election of your officers at the first -moment he puts his foot on shore in America, when it is impossible, from -the nature of things, that he can be qualified to exercise such a -talent; but if it was presumable that he was qualified by a knowledge of -the candidates, yet we have no hold upon his attachment to the -Government. - -Mr. SHERMAN thought that the interest of the State where the emigrant -intended to reside ought to be consulted, as well as the interests of -the General Government. He presumed it was intended by the convention -who framed the constitution, that Congress should have the power of -naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving -citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them -in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper -mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon -easier terms than those adopted by the several States. Now, the -regulation provided for in this bill, entitles all free white persons, -which includes emigrants, and even those who are likely to become -chargeable. It certainly never would be undertaken by Congress to compel -the States to receive and support this class of persons; it would -therefore be necessary that some clause should be added to the bill to -counteract such a general proposition. - -Mr. PAGE was of opinion, that the policy of European nations and States -respecting naturalization, did not apply to the situation of the United -States. Bigotry and superstition, or a deep-rooted prejudice against the -Government, laws, religion, or manners of neighboring nations had a -weight in that policy, which cannot exist here, where a more liberal -system ought to prevail. I think, said he, we shall be inconsistent with -ourselves, if, after boasting of having opened an asylum for the -oppressed of all nations, and established a Government which is the -admiration of the world, we make the terms of admission to the full -enjoyment of that asylum so hard as is now proposed. It is nothing to -us, whether Jews or Roman Catholics settle amongst us; whether subjects -of kings, or citizens of free States wish to reside in the United -States, they will find it their interest to be good citizens, and -neither their religious nor political opinions can injure us, if we have -good laws, well executed. - -Mr. BOUDINOT was against striking out the words, because he would rather -choose to alter it from one year to two years, than strike out all that -respected the capacity of an alien to be elected into any office. He -conceived, that after a person was admitted to the rights of -citizenship, he ought to have them full and complete, and not be -divested of any part. - -Mr. WHITE noticed the inconvenience which would result from permitting -an alien to all the rights of citizenship, merely upon his coming and -taking an oath that he meant to reside in the United States. Foreign -merchants and captains of vessels might by this means evade the -additional duties laid on foreign vessels; he thought, therefore, if the -words were struck out, that another clause ought to be added, depriving -persons of the privilege of citizenship, who left the country and staid -abroad for a given length of time. - -Mr. LAWRENCE was of opinion, that Congress had nothing more to do than -point out the mode by which foreigners might become citizens. The -constitution had expressly said how long they should reside among us -before they were admitted to seats in the Legislature; the propriety of -annexing any additional qualifications is therefore much to be -questioned. But this bill is not confined to the qualifications of the -General Government only, it descends to those of the State Governments; -it may be doubly questioned how far Congress has the power to declare -what residence shall entitle an alien to the right of a seat in the -State Legislatures. - -The reason of admitting foreigners to the rights of citizenship amongst -us is the encouragement of emigration, as we have a large tract of -country to people. Now, he submitted to the sense of the committee, -whether a term, so long as that prescribed in the bill, would not tend -to restrain rather than encourage emigration? It has been said, that we -ought not to admit them to vote at our elections. Will they not have to -pay taxes from the time they settle amongst us? And is it not a -principle that taxation and representation ought to go hand and hand? -Shall we then restrain a man from having an agency in the disposal of -his own money? It has been also observed, that persons might come and -reside amongst us for some time, and then leave the country; he did not -doubt that such might be the case, but it was not presumable, that after -they had once taken an oath that they meant to reside here, and had -become citizens, that they would return as soon as the occasion which -required their absence had terminated. - -Mr. MADISON.--When we are considering the advantages that may result -from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the -cautions necessary to guard against abuses. It is no doubt very -desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for -the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw -their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? -Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase -the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the -rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the -community, are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by -the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of -fidelity, and declare their intention to reside in the United States. -Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might -acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which -they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and -industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at -the same time all the advantages of citizens and aliens. - -I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization -excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to incorporate -himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man -should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to -the wealth or strength of the United States. - -It may be a question of some nicety, how far we can make our law to -admit an alien to the right of citizenship, step by step; but there is -no doubt we may, and ought to require residence as an essential. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) thought some restraints proper, and that -they would tend to raise the Government in the opinion of good men, who -are desirous of emigrating; as for the privilege of electing, or being -elected, he conceived a man ought to be some time in the country before -he could pretend to exercise it. What could he know of the Government -the moment he landed? Little or nothing: how then could he ascertain who -was a proper person to legislate or judge of the laws? Certainly -gentlemen would not pretend to bestow a privilege upon a man which he is -incapable of using? - -Mr. HARTLEY said that the subject had employed his thoughts for some -time, and that he had made up his mind in favor of requiring a term of -residence. The experience of all nations, and the constitutions of most -of the States induced the same opinion. An alien has no right to hold -lands in any country, and if they are admitted to do it in this, we are -authorized to annex to it such conditions as we think proper. If they -are unreasonable, they may defeat the object we have in view, but they -have no right to complain; yet, considering the circumstances of this -country, he was favorable to easy terms of admission, because, he -thought, it might be some inducement to foreigners to come and settle -among us. It has been remarked, that we must admit those whom we call -citizens to all the rights of citizenship at once. This opinion, he -presumed, was not well founded; the practice of this country in no -instance warrants it. The constitutions of the several States admit -aliens to the privilege of citizenship, step by step; they generally -require a residence for a certain time, before they are admitted to vote -at elections; some of them annex to it the condition of payment of taxes -and other qualifications; but he believed none of the States render a -foreigner capable of being elected to serve in a legislative capacity, -without a probation of some years. This kind of exception is also -contemplated in the Constitution of the United States. It is there -required, that a person shall be so many years an inhabitant before he -can be admitted to the trust of legislating for the society. He thought, -therefore, that this part of the objection is not well supported. - -Mr. WHITE doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on -what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands, in the respective -States; the power vested by the constitution in Congress, respecting the -subject now before the House, extends to nothing more than making a -uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a -citizen, the power of Congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights -and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; -but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and -immunities of the citizens in the several States. Now, if any State in -the Union should choose to prohibit its citizens from the privilege of -holding real estates, without a residence of a greater number of years -than should be thought proper by this House, they could do it, and no -authority of the Government, he apprehended, could enforce an obedience -to a regulation not warranted by the constitution. So, in the case of -elections, if the constitution of a particular State requires four, -five, or six years residence, before a man is admitted to acquire a -legislative capacity, with respect to the State Government, he must -remain there that length of time notwithstanding you may declare he -shall be eligible after a residence of two years; all, therefore, that -the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to a -uniform rule of naturalization, and not to a general definition of what -constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States. - -Mr. JACKSON conceived the present subject to be of high importance to -the respectability and character of the American name; the veneration he -had for, and the attachment he had to, this country, made him extremely -anxious to preserve its good fame from injury. He hoped to see the title -of a citizen of America as highly venerated and respected as was that of -a citizen of old Rome. I am clearly of opinion, that rather than have -the common class of vagrants, paupers, and other outcasts of Europe, -that we had better be as we are, and trust to the natural increase of -our population for inhabitants. If the motion made by the gentleman from -South Carolina, should obtain, such people will find an easy admission -indeed to the rights of citizenship; much too easy for the interests of -the people of America. Nay, sir, the terms required by the bill on the -table are, in my mind, too easy. I think, before a man is admitted to -enjoy the high and inestimable privileges of a citizen of America, that -something more than a mere residence amongst us is necessary. I think he -ought to pass some time in a state of probation, and at the end of the -term, be able to bring testimonials of a proper and decent behavior; no -man, who would be a credit to the community, could think such terms -difficult or indelicate: if bad men should be dissatisfied on this -account, and should decline to emigrate, the regulation will have a -beneficial effect; for we had better keep such out of the country than -admit them into it. I conceive, sir, that an amendment of this kind -would be reasonable and proper; all the difficulty will be to determine -how a proper certificate of good behavior should be obtained; I think it -might be done by vesting the power in the grand jury or district courts -to determine on the character of the man, as they should find it. - -Mr. PAGE.--I observed before, Mr. Chairman, that the European policy did -not apply to the United States. I gave my reasons for it; they are such -as have not been controverted, and I presume cannot be. - -With respect to the idea of excluding bad men from the rights of -citizenship, I look upon it as impracticable; hard terms of admission -may exclude good men, but will not keep out one of the wretches alluded -to; they will come in various forms, and care little about citizenship. -If we make use of the grand jury for this purpose, as proposed by the -member from Georgia, (Mr. JACKSON,) we must, to complete the plan, -authorize the grand jury to indict such emigrants as are unworthy to -become citizens, and expel them. We must add an inquisition, and as it -will not be sufficient for our views of having immaculate citizens, we -should add censors, and banish the immoral from amongst us. Indeed, sir, -I fear, if we go on as is proposed now, in the infancy of our republic, -we shall, in time, require a test of faith and politics of every person -who shall come into these States. As to any precautions against -admitting strangers to vote at elections, though I think them of less -importance than some gentlemen, I object not to them; but contend, that -every man, upon coming into the States, and taking the oath of -allegiance to the Government, and declaring his desire and intention of -residing therein, ought to be enabled to purchase and hold lands, or we -shall discourage many of the present inhabitants of Europe from becoming -inhabitants of the United States. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--We are authorized to establish a uniform rule of -naturalization; but what are the effects resulting from the admission of -persons to citizenship, is another concern, and depends upon the -constitutions and laws of the States now in operation. I have therefore -an objection to that part of the bill which respects the qualification -of the members of the State Legislatures. But with respect to residence, -before a man is admitted, I am of opinion with the gentleman from -Virginia, (Mr. PAGE,) at least it may be questioned, whether any good -can result from it, to compensate for the evil it may effect by -restraining emigration. The gentleman has said he would admit none but -such as would add to the wealth or strength of the nation. Every person -who comes among us must do one or the other; if he brings money, or -other property with him, he evidently increases the general mass of -wealth, and if he brings an able body, his labor will be productive of -national wealth, and an addition to our domestic strength. Consequently, -every person, rich or poor, must add to our wealth and strength, in a -greater or less degree. - -Mr. TUCKER had no object in making his motion, but to enable people to -hold lands, who came from abroad to settle in the United States. He was -otherwise satisfied with the clause, so far as it made residence a term -of admission to the privilege of election; but there was a seeming -contradiction in making them freeholders, and, at the same time, -excluding them from the performance of duties annexed to that class of -citizens. He thought the citizens had a right to require the performance -of such duties, by every person who was eligible under their State laws -and constitutions. Now, if the motion could be modified in any way to -accomplish his object with consistency, he would cheerfully acquiesce -therein. - -He had no doubt the Government had a right to make the admission to -citizenship progressive; the constitution pointed out something of this -kind, by the different ages and terms of residence they annexed to the -right of holding a seat in this House and in the Senate, and of being -chosen President. No inhabitant can become President of the United -States, unless he has been an inhabitant fourteen years; which plainly -infers that he might have been a citizen for other purposes, with a -shorter residence. But it goes still further, it enables Congress to -dictate the terms of citizenship to foreigners, and to prevent them from -being admitted to the full exercise of the rights of citizenship by the -General Government; because it declares that no other than a -natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this -constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President. - -Mr. SMITH (of S. C.) hoped the question would not be put to-day, as he -wished to reflect further on the subject. A variety of observations had -been made, which merited the serious attention of the committee; he -would suggest another. An alien, in Great Britain, is not permitted to -inherit, or hold real estate for his own use; consequently, a citizen of -the United States, and a subject of Great Britain, would not be on an -equal footing with respect to estates descended to them by inheritance. -He thought this, and other weighty observations, would induce the House -to postpone the subject till to-morrow. - -Mr. SEDGWICK was against the indiscriminate admission of foreigners to -the highest rights of human nature, upon terms so incompetent to secure -the society from being overrun with the outcasts of Europe; besides, the -policy of settling the vacant territory by emigration is of a doubtful -nature. He believed, in the United States, the human species might be -multiplied by a more eligible and convenient mode, than what seemed to -be contemplated by the motion now before the committee. He was well -satisfied for himself, that there existed no absolute necessity of -peopling it in this way; and, if there was no absolute necessity, he -thought Congress might use their discretion, and admit none but -reputable and worthy characters; such only were fit for the society into -which they were blended. The citizens of America preferred this country, -because it is to be preferred; the like principle he wished might be -held by every man who came from Europe to reside here; but there was at -least some grounds to fear the contrary; their sensations, impregnated -with prejudices of education, acquired under monarchical and -aristocratical governments, may deprive them of that zest for pure -republicanism, which is necessary in order to taste its beneficence with -that gratitude which we feel on the occasion. Some kind of probation, as -it has been termed, is absolutely requisite, to enable them to feel and -be sensible of the blessing. Without that probation, he should be sorry -to see them exercise a right which we have gloriously struggled to -attain. - -Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, -such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would -hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class -he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be -room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to -come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and -he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your -European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of -remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then -they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with -them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in -this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They -stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they -fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen -to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such -people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the -convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish -sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; -but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought -to be considered as a high misdemeanor. - -Mr. STONE had no doubt but an alien might be admitted to the rights of -citizenship, step by step; but he questioned the power of the House to -say that a man shall be citizen for certain purposes, as it respects the -individual State Governments; he concluded that the laws and -constitutions of the States, and the constitution and laws of the United -States would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain -degrees of citizenship. Congress may point out a uniform rule of -naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that -naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot -say that foreigners, naturalized under a general law, shall be entitled -to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--An exchange of sentiment on this floor I find always -tends to throw more light on a subject than is generally to be obtained -in any other way. But, as the subject is not yet fully elucidated, I -shall be in favor of letting it remain undecided till to-morrow, for -which reason, I move the committee to rise. - -This motion being put, the committee rose, and reported progress, after -which the House adjourned. - - -=Tuesday=, February 4. - -_Rule of Naturalization._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -naturalization bill, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair. - -Mr. TUCKER'S motion was still before the committee. - -The committee being about to take a question on the motion, - -Mr. PAGE wished it delayed until he saw the gentleman from South -Carolina (Mr. BURKE) in his place. - -Mr. SMITH (of S. C.) said, he believed the object of his colleague was -nothing more than to let foreigners, on easy terms, be admitted to hold -lands; that this object could be better effected by introducing a clause -to that purpose, and he had no doubt but it would be equally -satisfactory to his colleague. - -Mr. GOODHUE was against the motion, because it made our citizenship too -cheap; after it was decided against, he would move to make the term two -years, instead of one, before an alien should be entitled to the -privilege of a citizen. - -Mr. JACKSON.--It was observed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that we could not -modify or confine our terms of naturalization; that we could not admit -an alien to the rights of citizenship progressively. I shall take the -liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by a -reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, -_Justice Blackstone_, I., 10.--"Naturalization," says he, "cannot be -performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in -exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King's legiance, -_except_ only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a -member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c. -No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament -without such disabling clause in it." So that here we find, in that -nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only -that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely -necessary to be pursued in every act of Parliament for the -naturalization of foreigners. - -The same learned Judge then goes on to show the attempts that were made -to introduce a general system of naturalization, and how they failed; -and that, to this day, even of their meritorious naval and military -characters they make an exception, as to sitting in Parliament, &c., and -holding grants of land from the Crown, within the Kingdoms of Great -Britain and Ireland. After this, I presume, it will not be contended -that we cannot found our law on the principle of a progressive and -probational naturalization. - -Mr. HUNTINGTON.--The terms of the bill are too indefinite; they require -the emigrant to take an oath that he intends to reside in the United -States; but how long, and for what purpose, is not ascertained. He may -determine to stay here until he accomplishes a particular object; and he -may go into the most obscure part of the Union to take this oath. The -community certainly will not be benefited by such emigrants, and -therefore they ought not to be admitted to the privileges of -citizenship. The mode of naturalization, pointed out in this bill, is -much too easy. In the State to which I belong, said he, no person could -be naturalized, but by an act of the Legislature; the same is the case -in several of the other States, and in Britain. He never knew a good -inhabitant, who wished to be admitted to the rights of citizenship, but -what found this mode sufficiently easy. The term that an emigrant should -reside ought to be sufficiently long to give him an opportunity of -acquiring a knowledge of the principles of the Government, and of those -who are most proper to administer it; otherwise he cannot exercise his -privilege with any advantage to himself, or to the community. He -therefore wished that the clause might be amended, in such a manner as -to leave the naturalization of foreigners to the State Legislatures. - -Mr. BURKE.--Unless some residence is required, it may be attended with -confusion. In large cities, like Boston, New-York, or Philadelphia, an -election may be carried by the votes of the body of sailors who happened -to be in port. If the French fleet was here at such a time, and a spirit -of party strongly excited, perhaps one of the candidates might get the -crews of every ship in the fleet, and after qualifying them, by taking -an oath of no definite meaning, carry them up to the hustings, and place -himself or his friend on this floor, contrary to the voice of -nine-tenths of the city. Even a residence of one year is too short, it -ought to be two, three, or four; but seven is too long. Indeed, the -whole of this bill seems somehow objectionable; there are some cases -also omitted, which may show the necessity of recommitting it. - -The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be -provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th -year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be -likewise attended to. - -Mr. JACKSON had an objection to any persons holding land in the United -States without residence, and an intention of becoming a citizen; under -such a regulation the whole Western Territory might be purchased up by -the inhabitants of England, France, or other foreign nations; the -landholders might combine and send out a large tenantry, and have -thereby such an interference in the Government as to overset the -principles upon which it is established. It will be totally subversive -of the old established doctrine that allegiance and land go together; a -person owing no allegiance to a sovereign, ought not to hold lands under -its protection, because he cannot be called upon and obliged to give -that support which invasion or insurrection may render necessary. But -with respect to residence and probation, before an alien is entitled to -the privilege of voting at elections, I am very clear it is necessary; -unless gentlemen mean to render the rank of an American citizen the -maygame of the world. Shall stories be told of our citizenship, such as -I have read in the Pennsylvania Magazine, of the citizenship there: if -my memory serves me right, the story runs, that at a contested election -in Philadelphia, when parties ran very high, and no stone was left -unturned, on either side, to carry the election, most of the ships in -the harbor were cleared of their crews, who, ranged under the masters -and owners, came before a magistrate, took the oath of allegiance, and -paid half-a-crown tax to the collector, as the constitution required, -then went and voted, and decided the contest of the day. On the return -of one of the vessels, whose crew had been employed in the affair of the -election, they fell in with a shoal of porpoises off Cape Henlopen: -"Ha!" said one of them, "what merry company have we got here! I wonder -where they are going so cheerfully?" "Going," replied one of his -comrades, "why, going to Philadelphia, to be sure, to pay taxes and vote -for Assembly men!" I hope, Mr. Chairman, we have more respect for our -situation as citizens, than to expose ourselves to the taunts and jeers -of a deriding world, by making that situation too cheap. - -Mr. BURKE said, no person ought to be permitted to inherit by descent in -America, unless the same privilege was reciprocated by other nations; -perhaps this point would be properly settled by treaty, and it would be -well to introduce a provisionary clause to this effect. He was also in -favor of admitting foreigners to hold lands on easy terms, if they would -come to reside among us: and here he would take an opportunity of doing -justice to some of them, as it might be supposed, from what had fallen -from various parts of the House, that foreigners, educated under a -monarchy, were inimical to the pure principles of republicanism. He was -convinced that this doctrine was untrue, because he had often remarked, -that foreigners made as good citizens of republics as the natives -themselves. Frenchmen, brought up under an absolute monarch, evinced -their love of liberty in the late arduous struggle; many of them are now -worthy citizens, who esteem and venerate the principles of our -Revolution. Emigrants from England, Ireland, and Scotland, have not been -behind any in the love of this country; so there is but little occasion -for the jealousy which appears to be entertained for the preservation of -the Government. - -Mr. TUCKER thought the bill must be recommitted; but he did not wish it -done till the sense of the House was known on some of the various points -that had presented themselves during the debate. With respect to the -latter part of the first clause, he agreed with the gentleman from -Maryland, (Mr. SENEY,) that we ought to provide a rule of -naturalization, without attempting to define the particular privileges -acquired thereby under the State Governments. By the Constitution of the -United States, the electors of the House of Representatives are to have -the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of -the State Legislatures. He presumed it was to be left to the discretion -of the State constitutions, who were to be the electors of the State -Legislatures, and therefore the General Government had no right to -interfere therein. - -Mr. HARTLEY observed, that the subject was entirely new, and that the -committee had no positive mode to enable them to decide; the practice of -England, and the regulations of the several States, threw some light on -the subject, but not sufficient to enable them to discover what plan of -naturalization would be acceptable under a government like this. Some -gentlemen had objected to the bill, without attending to all its parts, -for a remedy was therein provided for some of the inconveniences that -have been suggested. It was said the bill ought to extend to the -exclusion of those who had trespassed against the laws of foreign -nations, or been convicted of a capital offence in any foreign kingdom; -the last clause contains a proviso to that effect, and he had another -clause ready to present, providing for the children of American citizens -born out of the United States. - -Mr. LIVERMORE thought the bill very imperfect, and that the committee -ought to rise, and recommend it to be referred to a select committee; -observing, that it was extremely difficult for fifty or sixty persons to -arrange and make a system of a variety of motions and observations that -had been brought forward. - -On the question being put, the committee rose and reported, and the bill -was recommitted to a committee of ten.[33] - - -MONDAY, February 8. - -_Public Credit._ - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union. The report of the Secretary of the Treasury relative -to a provision for the support of public credit was before them. Mr. -BALDWIN in the chair. - -After a silence of some minutes, - -Mr. LIVERMORE asked, what part of the report it was expected that -gentlemen should speak to? He wished some gentleman would select such -parts as he conceived to be of importance, and submit them to the -committee. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) was of opinion, that the committee had -better consider the object of the report, in separate points of view, by -which means they would be able to go through the investigation with a -greater degree of accuracy than if they were left to range at large in -the extensive field before them. The report contains objects so various, -that it is possible gentlemen may agree, with respect to one or two, and -yet differ on a third: from this consideration, he was induced to -suggest the idea of single and independent resolutions, and had prepared -the following: if the manner met the approbation of the committee, he -would lay them on the table for consideration. They were to the -following effect: - -_Resolved_, That Congress ought not adjourn, until they have adopted -such measures as will make an adequate provision for the public debt. - -_Resolved_, That in making such provision, no discrimination shall be -made between the original holders of the evidences and the assignees -thereof. - -_Resolved_, That such of the debts of the individual States as have been -incurred by them, during the late war, ought to be assumed by the -General Government, and like funds provided for them.[34] - -_Resolved_, That the arrearages of interest, on the Continental and -State debts, ought to be funded, and consolidated with the principal. - -_Resolved_, That the interest to be paid thereon does not exceed ---- -per cent. per annum, for the present. - -These motions were severally expressive of objects contemplated in the -Secretary's report. The last was upon a principle of modification, such -as was held out in the plan for reloaning the debt. - - -TUESDAY, February 9. - - _Public credit: Providing for the public debt: Assuming the - State debts: Funding their certificates: Report of General - Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury._ - - [To the first object, that of providing for the public - debt, there was no objection; to the assumption and the - funding there was a strenuous opposition, and their - adoption became one of the landmarks of party.] - -Mr. JACKSON.--Believe me, Mr. Chairman, I have as high a sense of the -obligation we are under to the public creditors, and feel as much -gratitude towards them as any man on this floor. I shall ever cheerfully -acknowledge the duty we owe to our benefactors, and in a peculiar manner -to those brave soldiers who, at the risk of their lives and fortunes, -secured the independency of America. I have also the most sincere wishes -for the re-establishment of public credit, and that upon firm and solid -ground, and on principles which cannot be called in question; but there -appears to me a previous question, which has not yet been brought -forward; it is this, whether there exists an immediate necessity for -funding the national debt in the permanent manner proposed? - -The high regard I have for the nature and circumstances of the foreign -debt, induced me to let the first proposition pass without any -animadversion. The vote which has been taken on that point will serve to -show foreigners that we are concerned to preserve our credit with them -by a rigid performance of our stipulations; trusting, at the same time, -that our fellow-citizens cannot object to a distinction so just and -proper in itself; for, notwithstanding what the domestic creditors may -say, it is the money of foreigners that has, in a great measure, -established our independence. - -It is doubtful with me whether a permanent funded debt is beneficial or -not to any country; some of the first writers in the world, and who are -most admired on account of the clearness of their perceptions, have -thought otherwise, and declared that wherever funding systems have been -adopted in a Government, they tend more to injure posterity than they -would injure the inhabitants to pay the whole debt at the time it was -contracted. The principle, I apprehend, is demonstrated by experience; -the first system of the kind that we have any account of originated in -the State of Florence in the year 1634; that Government then owed about -£60,000 sterling, and being unable to pay it, formed the principal into -a funded debt, transferable with interest at five per cent. What is the -situation of Florence in consequence of this event? Her ancient -importance is annihilated. Look at Genoa and Venice; they adopted a -similar policy, and are the only two of the Italian Republics who can -pretend to an independent existence, but their splendor is obscured; -they have never been able since the period at which a funding system was -introduced to raise themselves to that formidable state to which they -were before. Spain seems to have learned the practice from the Italian -Republics, and she, by the anticipation of her immense revenue, has sunk -her consequence beneath that level which her natural situation might -have maintained. France is considerably enfeebled, and languishes under -a heavy load of debt. England is a melancholy instance of the ruin -attending such engagements. In the reign of King William, 1706, the -policy of the English Parliament laid the foundation of what is called -their national debt; but the sum was inconsiderable; it little exceeded -£5,000,000 sterling; the example then set has been closely followed. In -1711, it amounted to £9,177,769 sterling, during the wars in the reign -of Queen Anne; since that, the capital of the debt of Great Britain -amounted, in 1777, to about £136,000,000 sterling; and to such a pitch -has the spirit of funding and borrowing been carried in that country, -that in 1786, their national debt had increased to £230,000,000 -sterling; a burthen which the most sanguine mind can never contemplate -they will ever be relieved from. If future difficulties should involve -that nation still further, what must be the consequence? The same effect -must be produced that has taken place in other nations; it must either -bring on a national bankruptcy, or annihilate her existence as an -independent empire. Hence I contend that a funding system in this -country will be highly dangerous to the welfare of the Republic; it may, -for a moment, raise our credit, and increase our circulation by -multiplying a new species of currency; but it must hereafter settle upon -our posterity a burthen which they can neither bear nor relieve -themselves from. It will establish a precedent in America that may, and -in all probability will be pursued by the sovereign authority, until it -brings upon us that ruin which it has never failed to bring, or is -inevitably bringing, upon all the nations of the earth who have had the -temerity to make the experiment. Let us take warning by the errors of -Europe, and guard against the introduction of a system followed by -calamities so universal. Though our present debt be but a few millions, -in the course of a single century it may be multiplied to an extent we -dare not think of; for my part, I would rather have direct taxes imposed -at once, which, in the course of a few years, would annihilate the -principal of our debt. A few years' exertion in this way will save our -posterity from a load of annual interest, amounting to the fifth, or -perhaps the half of the sum we are now under engagements to pay. - -But why, Mr. Chairman, should we hasten on this business of funding? Are -our debts ascertained? The report of the Secretary of the Treasury -proposes that we should not only fund the debts that are ascertained, -but the unliquidated and unsettled debts due from the Continent; nor -does the plan stop here, it proposes that we should assume the payment -of the State debts--debts to us totally unknown. Many of the States, -sir, have not yet ascertained what they owe; and if we do not know the -amount of what we owe, or are to be indebted, shall we establish funds? -Shall we put our hands into the pockets of our constituents, and -appropriate moneys for uses we are undetermined of? But more especially -shall we do this, when, in doing it, it is indisputably certain, that -the encumbrance will more than exceed all the benefits and conveniences? -Gentlemen may come forward, perhaps, and tell me, that funding the -public debt will increase the circulating medium of the country, by -means of its transferable quality; but this is denied by the best -informed men. The funding of the debt will occasion enormous taxes for -the payment of the interest. These taxes will bear heavily both on -agriculture and commerce. It will be charging the active and industrious -citizen, who pays his share of the taxes, to pay the indolent and idle -creditor who receives them, to be spent and wasted in the course of the -year, without any hope of a future reproduction; for the new capital -which they acquire must have existed in the country before, and must -have been employed, as all capitals are, in maintaining productive -labor. Thus the honest, hard-working part of the community will promote -the ease and luxury of men of wealth; such a system may benefit large -cities, like Philadelphia and New York, but the remote parts of the -continent will not feel the invigorating warmth of the American -treasury; in the proportion that it benefits one, it will depress -another. - -Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--The report of the Secretary of the -Treasury contains a proposition for the establishment of a sinking fund. -I wish the gentleman who brought forward the resolutions under -consideration, had included that part of the system in his -propositions, as it might have had a tendency to ease the mind of the -honorable gentleman from Georgia, and to have shown him that the public -debt is not intended to acquire the permanency which he dreads. If our -present debt cannot be paid off at once, all that can be done is to -provide such funds for its gradual extinction as will morally ensure the -object. - -The gentleman has contended, that public funding is a public injury. I -agree with him that funding a debt to a very great amount may be very -injurious; yet funding a small debt is beneficial. But whether this is, -or is not a fact, is not the object of our present inquiry; we are not -in a situation to determine whether we will or will not have a public -debt. We have it already, and it appears to me to be a matter of -necessity that we should appropriate some funds for the payment of the -interest upon it. When we consider the nature of the contract, for what -it is we owe the money, and our ability to comply, it follows, of -consequence, that we must pay; it follows as close as the shadow follows -its substance; or as close as the night follows the day. The only -question that can come before us is, the mode of doing it. - -With respect to that part of our debt which is yet unascertained, I -would just beg leave to observe, that it is not our fault that it -remains in an unsettled state; neither is it the fault of those who have -brought in their accounts and had them liquidated. Hence, it appears to -me extremely hard that we should refuse to provide for the payment of -those to whom we acknowledge ourselves to be indebted, because there are -others whose claims against us are not yet adjusted. The argument, -therefore, which relates to this point, as well as that which relates to -the Western Territory, will apply ten years hence as well as now, and -form an eternal pretext for deferring the business. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS said, that the circumstances of the foreign debt were -such as left no choice in our power, according to the plan proposed by -the Secretary of the Treasury; but we have it in our power, and are -recommended to make a different arrangement with respect to the domestic -debt. I stated, when I introduced the resolutions, that they were -intended to bring the Secretary's plan fairly before the committee. This -resolution is differently worded on that account; but it may be -observed, that the foreign creditors are not here to make a contract -with the people of the United States, but the domestic creditors are; -and we may hold out a modification to them for their acceptance. With -respect to the means by which we shall be enabled to pay the interest -and principal of our debt, this resolution has nothing to do, it leaves -it to the consideration of the committee; and every gentleman will be -perfectly at liberty to propose and support such as he supposes to be -most suitable to our abilities. - -Mr. LIVERMORE.--I do not clearly understand the import of the resolution -before the committee. It seems worded rather in a doubtful manner. If -it means, that funds ought to be appropriated for the payment of the -interest and principal of the domestic debt, as the amount appears on -the face of the certificates, I shall be totally against it; whether it -pointedly carries that meaning or not, I cannot say. - -For my part, I consider the foreign and domestic debt to carry with them -very material distinctions. The one is not like a debt, while the other -has all the true qualities of one. However gentlemen may think on this -subject, there is a great difference between the merits of that debt -which was lent the United States in real coin, by disinterested persons, -not concerned or benefited by the revolution, and at a low rate of -interest, and those debts which have been accumulating upon the United -States, at the rate of six per cent. interest, and which were not -incurred for efficient money lent, but for depreciated paper, or -services done at exorbitant rates, or for goods or provisions supplied -at more than their real worth, by those who received all the benefits -arising from our change of condition. It is within the knowledge of -every gentleman, that a very considerable part of our domestic -loan-office debt arose in this manner. It is well known that loan-office -certificates were issued as a kind of circulating medium, when the -United States were in such straits for cash, that they could not raise -the necessary supplies in any other way. And it is very well known, that -those who sold goods or provisions for this circulating medium, raised -their prices from six to ten shillings at least. - -There is another observation I would beg leave to make. The prices at -which our supplies were procured were such, even in hard money, that it -might be said specie had depreciated, or, what amounted to the same -thing, the commodities were sold for more than their current price; in -many cases, half the price would now purchase the same thing. If so, -there is as much reason that we should now consider these public -securities in a depreciated state, as every holder of them has -considered them from that time to this. There was a period at which they -were considered of no greater value than three or four shillings in the -pound; at this day they are not at more than eight or ten. If this, -then, is the case, why should Congress put it upon the same footing as -the foreign debt, for which they received a hard dollar for every dollar -they engaged to pay? Could any possible wrong be done to those who hold -the domestic debt, by estimating it at its current value? I do not speak -of those only who have speculated in certificates. With respect to them, -I do not see how a difference can be made. By the resolutions of -Congress, and from the face of the papers, it appears that they were -transferable. - -It may be said, that there was some part of the domestic debt incurred -by loans of hard money. There might be a small part lent in this way, -but it was very small indeed, compared with the whole of the domestic -debt. It is in the memory of every gentleman, that, before the beginning -of the revolution, every State issued paper-money; it answered the -exigencies of Government in a considerable degree. The United States -issued a currency of the same nature, which answered their purposes, -except in some particular cases, and these were effected by loans of -certain sums of hard money. If any distinctions are to be made among the -domestic creditors, they ought to be made in favor of such only, and -that in consequence of the origin of the debt; while the great mass -given for the depreciated paper, or provisions sold at double prices, -ought to be liquidated at its real value. I cannot think it injustice to -reduce the interests on those debts. I should therefore be against -passing this resolution, if it carries in it the idea of paying the -principal and interest, according to the face of the paper. It is well -known, that a large proportion of this domestic debt was incurred for -paper-money lent. To be sure Congress acknowledged its value equal to -its name; but this was done on a principle of policy, in order to -prevent the rapid depreciation which was taking place. But money lent in -this depreciated and depreciating state, can hardly be said to be lent -from a spirit of patriotism; it was a mere speculation in public -securities. They hoped, by putting their money in the loan-office, -though in a depreciated state, to receive hard money for it by and by. I -flatter myself this prediction will never be effected. - -The Secretary of the Treasury has offered some alternatives to the -creditors, out of which they may make their election; but it seems to me -that they, all of them, propose a reduction in the principal and -interest, that they may have an annuity of two-thirds, at six per -centum, or for the whole sum at four per centum, or they may accept of -the other terms. Though this may make a reduction favorable to the -public, yet this is not such a reduction as justice, in my opinion, -requires; and as the resolution before the committee is intended to make -way for the adoption of those principles, I shall vote against it, -though I would rather it was passed over for the present, in order to -see what is the sense of the House on making a specific provision for -the payment of the debt. - -Mr. PAGE was glad that the question had been asked the mover of the -propositions on the table what was the object of the resolution now -under consideration, because it was liable to be misunderstood. But now, -he presumed, the answer had satisfied every gentleman's mind. - -The gentleman from New Hampshire was pleased to observe, that foreigners -were not interested in the late revolution; that what they did was from -such motives as demanded our gratitude; but our citizens were deeply -interested, and, I believe, if they were never to get a farthing for -what is owing to them for their services, they would be well paid; they -have gained what they aimed at; they have secured their liberties and -their lives; they will be satisfied that this House has pledged itself -to pay to foreigners the generous loans they advanced us in the day of -distress. If we were to make distinctions adverse to their interests, we -could never expect from them a further favor in the future exigencies of -this country. But we may also look with confidence at home for loans and -services; on such occasions they will be supplied us on the principles -of patriotism; the adoption of the first resolution was therefore -politic and just, but the motion of my worthy colleague is not -necessary. I feel for my fellow-citizens who have gloriously exerted -themselves in the salvation of their country by their services in the -field, or the supplies which they yielded, as much as any man can do. I -acknowledge the debt of gratitude the community owes to those select -citizens, and am willing to pay it as far as we possibly can; but they -cannot, they will not complain of the deference we have shown to others, -whose particular situation merited such regard at our hands. - -Mr. SCOTT.--I find myself obliged to consider the Government of the -United States in a very different situation, with respect to our foreign -and domestic creditors. With respect to the foreign debt, we, the -representatives of the United States, are vested with full power, and we -are bound in duty to provide for the punctual payment according to the -nature of the contract; but when I turn my eyes to the domestic debt, I -find myself in a very different situation. I conceive myself a mere -arbiter among the individuals of which the Union is composed. A part of -the people have a claim upon somebody. I think that claim is against the -people at large, and we are not only to provide for the payment of that -claim, if just, but to determine whether that claim is just or not. One -part of the community applies to us to recover of the other what is due -to it; the other says, the debt is too large, it is more than is justly -due; you must try and determine between us, and say what part is just, -and what is not. This brings clearly into my view the whole subject, as -a thing within the power of Congress to new model or modify, if we find -that justice demands it; but we have no such authority with respect to -the foreign debt. It is very clear to me, that we have the power to -administer justice and impartiality among the members of the Union; and -this will lead me freely to assert, that we have not only authority, but -it is our duty, if, on examination, we find that not more than half the -sum that is claimed is justly claimed, to strike off the other half. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--I am glad to see gentlemen bring into view principles on -which to determine the great question before us; because, when they are -once established, they will enable us to proceed with certainty to a -decision. If the principles brought forward by the honorable gentleman -from Pennsylvania are just, his arguments are of great weight; but if, -on consideration, we shall find that the principles are unjust, then I -presume, however cogent the system of reasoning he has founded thereon, -it will not prevail. He supposes we sit here as judges to determine the -different claims of the creditors of the United States. If we are in -that predicament, I agree we ought not to proceed but on full evidence -and hearing of those claims. But I have never hitherto been led to -consider Congress in this light, nor can I now consider them in any such -point of view. I consider the Congress, who entered into these -engagements, as complete representatives of the United States, and, in -their political capacity, authorized, by the articles of Confederation, -to contract the debts for which our public faith is pledged; instead of -being judges, or arbitrators, on this occasion, we are parties to the -contract; nor is our case varied, by the dissolution of the old -Confederacy, because the existing constitution has expressly recognized -the engagements made under the former. All debts contracted before the -adoption of this constitution, shall be as valid against the United -States, under this Government, as under the Confederation. Now is the -moment to establish the principle; if the constitution admits the -borrowing of money, or paying for supplies, to be a contract, we are one -of the parties to this contract, and all idea of being arbiters must -vanish. We cannot judge in our own cause. The case will now stand clear; -we owe a debt, contracted for a valuable consideration. The evidences of -our debt are in the hands of our creditors, and we are called upon to -discharge them; if we have it in our power, we ought to consider -ourselves bound to do it, on every principle of honor, of justice, and -of policy; but as we have not the ability to pay the whole off, nor, -perhaps, the whole interest, we must endeavor to make such a -modification as will enable us to satisfy every one. Not that this -modification shall take place without the consent of the creditors; this -would be improper and unjust. Each party is as much to be consulted on -this occasion, as it was at the time of the first contract. If, then, -Congress is bound by the first contract, no gentleman can say we are -judges. If we are parties, what would be the decision before a court of -justice? The creditor produces my bond, by which I have bound myself to -pay a hundred dollars; I cannot gainsay the fact; no man is allowed to -plead that he has made a bad bargain, and that at other times, he could -have purchased what he got of the creditor at half the sum he was forced -to allow him. The inquiry with the judges is not, whether the debtor -made a good bargain or not, but whether he did it fairly and -voluntarily. We are in the same predicament if we fairly and honestly -received the _quid pro quo_; we are bound, as parties to the honest -performance of the contract, to discharge the debt; otherwise, what -avails the clause in the constitution, declaring all debts contracted, -and engagements entered into, before the adoption to be as valid against -the present Government as they were under the old Confederation? The -debt was _bona fide_ contracted; it was acknowledged by the United -States; and the creditor received a certificate as to the evidence of -his debt. It is immaterial to us what he did with it. I confess, if the -original holder was to come forward, and say that he had been robbed of -such evidence, we ought not to pay it until the point was ascertained in -a court of justice. - -Some observations were made to point out a difference between the -foreign and domestic debt. I admit there is a distinction, and that in -another instance, which has not been mentioned. His Most Christian -Majesty, when he first became our important ally, presented Congress -with a large sum of money; but this being insufficient to procure us the -necessary supply of military stores, a loan was made us from the royal -coffers of France. But this also being inadequate, we endeavored to -obtain further aid from foreigners. The credit of the United States was -so much impaired, as to hold out but little encouragement to individuals -to trust us with their money. The French King added another mark of his -distinguished attention: he guarantied the loan, and the money was -obtained--obtained of the widow and fatherless; of persons whose all -depended upon a punctual payment of the interest. On this point I could -refer you to letters from our commissioners in Europe, who beg that we -may not put them on this business, unless we are certain that the United -States will carefully provide for the payment of the interest; because, -in case of failure, hundreds must perish for want. This is another -motive why we should attend to the performance of our contracts; and I -will repeat again, it is what we are called upon to do upon every -principle of honor, justice, and policy. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--The observations of the honorable gentleman from -Pennsylvania, (Mr. SCOTT,) if I rightly understand them, apply to the -principal, and not the interest of the domestic debt. He imagines it to -be too large; that is, that the individual who performed services, or -rendered supplies during the late war, received evidences of rather too -great nominal value; and that, at this period of time, it is necessary -to investigate every particular claim, and judge whether the balances -are respectively due or not. The gentleman has distinguished between the -foreign and domestic creditor on this point; he supposes the foreign -debt ought not to be re-examined, because the holders of it are -unconnected with our Government. They lent us money, and we are bound -according to the precise terms of the contract. Here I agree with him; -but that there should be a solid distinction in justice between the -foreign and domestic creditor is to me a singular thing. It was -observed, that the citizens of America would be well paid for their -loans, supplies, and services, by the benefits and profits arising to -them by the revolution; but are we to sacrifice the claims of -individuals of the community for the advantage of the whole? Who are -benefited by the revolution? Every citizen. Then every citizen is bound -to contribute his equal part of the expenses attending the procurement. -Should those of our citizens who furnished the supplies, or loaned their -money, be the only class who are injured? Every citizen is bound to pay -according to his ability, because every one has participated in the -benefits: then the only question to ask is, whether this discrimination -should be made to ascertain or new proportion the debt? This will lead -me to inquire whether it is proper for us, after the resolution we -passed at the last session, after the resolution we have just now -passed, to scale the public debt anew? Shall we say that the evidence -carries on its face fraud and deception? I contend we shall not. Why -shall we liquidate a debt which is established upon a complete and final -settlement? From the face of the evidences arises the demand, and that -is the demand we are to make provision for. Shall we go to our officers -and soldiers who served during the late war, individually, and say that -the balance struck to be due to them is an imposition on the public, -when the Government itself has determined that they were entitled to -such particular reward? If, at the time those securities were given to -them, Government had paid them in money, would any gentleman now contend -that their accounts ought to be reliquidated, and every individual -called upon to refund a part of what he acquired in conformity to the -laws of this country? Certainly no gentleman would contend for such a -measure. How is the nature of the case altered from the circumstances of -our having been so unfortunate as to pay those worthy men with a -certificate in lieu of the money which was due? The nature of the case, -I conceive, is perfectly the same; and we are in duty bound to make a -full compensation. The face of the paper expresses what that is, and it -is to be our guide; the demand surely is not to be lessened. - -Mr. JACKSON said there were, most surely, principles on which to ground -a discrimination betwixt a foreign and domestic creditor; if there was -no other, there was this, that the domestic creditors are those that are -bound to pay the foreign creditors their demand; they ought, -consequently, to do justice to others, by a punctual payment, before -they require a discharge of their own claims. - -Mr. AMES did not conceive it material to inquire whether there be an -equal obligation on the people of the United States to pay their foreign -and domestic creditors, when they meant to pay both; but if it is -intended to reduce the principal of either, it will lead us into a -discussion of the principles on which such a measure ought to be -founded. The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT) probably -intends by the amendment to have a reduction of the debt; I have, said -he, so much respect for the good sense and upright intentions of that -honorable gentleman, that I will not impute to him unworthy motives; nor -do I believe that he governs his conduct in private life by maxims -which I suspect to be contained in the amendment now before us. I would -not be understood, by any means, to convey an improper reflection upon -the opinions of any one. The science of finance is new in America; a -gentleman may therefore propose the worst of measures with the best -intentions. What, let me inquire, will be the pernicious consequences -resulting from the establishment of this doctrine? Will it not be -subversive of every principle on which public contracts are founded? The -evidences of the debt, possessed by the creditors of the United States, -cannot, in reason, justice, or policy, be considered in any other light -than as public bonds, for the redemption and payment of which the -property and labor of the whole people are pledged. The only just idea -is, that when the public contract a debt with an individual, that it -becomes personified, and that with respect to this contract, the powers -of Government shall never legislate. If this was not the case, it would -destroy the effect it was intended to produce; no individual would be -found willing to trust the Government, if he supposed the Government had -the inclination and power, by virtue of a mere major vote, to set aside -the terms of the engagement. If the public in such a case is, as I have -said, personified, what conceivable difference is there, except in favor -of the creditor, between the public and an individual in the case? If, -then, the public contract is a solemn obligation upon us, we are bound -to its true and faithful performance. What is the object for which men -enter into society, but to secure their lives and property? What is the -usual means of acquiring property between man and man? The best right to -property is acquired by the consent of the last owner. If, then, an -individual is possessed of property, in consequence of this right, how -can Government, founded on this social compact, pretend to exercise the -right of divesting a man of that object which induced him to combine -himself with the society? every gentleman may determine this question by -his own feelings. Shall it be said that this Government, evidently -established for the purpose of securing property, that, in its first -act, it divested its citizens of seventy millions of money, which is -justly due to the individuals who have contracted with Government! I -believe those gentlemen, who are apprehensive for the liberties and -safety of their fellow-citizens, under the efficiency of the present -constitution, will find real cause of alarm from the establishment of -the present doctrine. I have heard, that in the East Indies the stock of -the labor and property of the empire is the property of the prince; that -it is held at his will and pleasure; but this is a slavish doctrine, -which I hope we are not prepared to adopt here. But I will not go -further into a consideration of the idea of discrimination. I will ask, -though, is this country ever to be in a settled and quiet state? Must -every transaction that took place, during the course of the last war, -be ripped up? Shall we never have done with the settlement and -liquidation of our accounts? - -Mr. LIVERMORE.--The arguments advanced by the gentlemen from -Massachusetts and New York prove too much, and therefore prove nothing. -That the late Congress had, at all times, from their first institution, -the power to contract debts, for the benefit of the United States, -cannot be denied; and that we are authorized to pay such debts, is -equally certain. But this by no means contravenes the opinion of those -gentlemen who think, that the whole may be properly considered and -discharged at the rate which justice requires; for the same argument -which is urged for the payment of the public securities at their nominal -value, might be urged in favor of paying off the Continental debts of -credit, according to the sums expressed on the face of them. They were -issued with as much confidence, and were received with as much reliance -on the public faith, as any species of securities whatever; yet, it -seems to be given up on all hands, that the owners of the old -Continental paper bills ought not to be paid according to their nominal -value. Perhaps it may be said, on comparing them with the loan-office -certificates, that the United States had not the benefit of that money; -but had they not the value of it? It will be answered, that when the -money was first issued, Congress had nearly the value for it; but -afterwards the money greatly depreciated, and they had not the full -value for it, yet the obligation to pay it is as explicit as words can -make it. No advocate will be found for making all that money good. It -has been thought proper, and it is just, that it should be reduced from -its nominal value; if it is reduced on a scale of one hundred for one, -the holders of it, I dare say, would cheerfully receive that sum. If the -United States then had value for it, and if they had not value for the -certificates, who can doubt of the justice of reliquidating, and duly -ascertaining the public debt? All I contend for is this, that the -present Government pay the debts of the United States; but as the -domestic part of the debt has been contracted in depreciated notes, that -less interest should be paid upon it than six per cent. Six per cent. -was the usual interest upon the certificates when they were issued by -Congress; but if the possessor has received no part of this six per -cent. until this time, that now the principal and interest be -consolidated into one sum, hereafter to bear an interest of three or -four per cent.; then those citizens, who now stand as creditors of the -Union, will find that part of their property has been the most -productive of any, much more productive than the property of the -citizens of the United States has generally been. Those who lent their -money to individuals before and during the late war, generally lost or -suffered by the depreciation some three-quarters of the capital; nay, -some thirty-nine fortieths. But is this the case of the domestic -creditor of the United States? No! he will preserve his property, -through the chaos of the revolution, and be put now in a more eligible -situation than he was at the time when he loaned the money. The capital -sum which he lent is now increased, and very rapidly increased, for six -per cent. is a very large interest. He will now receive 160 dollars for -his 100, and putting that into the funds, at three or four per cent. he -will find it more productive than any other method in which he could -employ his money; for, I contend, that neither improved, nor unimproved -lands, will give an interest near half of what the public creditor will -receive. People who have held real property have sunk, with the taxes, -and other losses, the greatest part of it; but the public creditor has -let his run through the confusion of the revolution, and nevertheless -gets it returned to him safe; and, so far from being impaired, that he -has prodigiously accumulated, not only in a manner superior to the -property of his fellow-citizens, but superior to the foreigner who lent -his money at four per cent. Justice and equity require, on the behalf of -the community, that these people be content with reasonable profit. They -ought not, therefore, to receive, on a funded debt, so much as six per -cent.; whether three or four, or something between three and four, would -be a proper sum, I shall not pretend to determine. But I consider it a -proper question for this committee to consider, in justice to those who -are to pay, as well as to those who are to receive; nor do I believe the -domestic creditors would be dissatisfied with it, provided they were -sure of receiving this annual interest; for their debts, on such a -footing, would be better to them than if they were established on an -extravagant plan that could never be effected, but which would be likely -to throw the nation into confusion. Every body has suffered more or less -by the depreciation, but the public creditors very little, in regard to -that part of their property which they had deposited in the hands of -Government: it is true, that it has slept; but it is now waked up to -some purpose. - -Mr. SCOTT.--A great deal has been said on a great principle that must be -attended to in some stage of this business; but gentlemen have been led -into a more extensive discussion on the doctrine of discrimination than -I had any idea of when I proposed the amendment. It has been urged by -some of the gentlemen, that however just my principle is, that the -Legislature is in the quality of an arbitrator, yet we cannot adopt the -amendment; others again have said, that the debt is a contract between -the Government and the individual, and that we being parties we cannot -be judges; for it is contrary to the principles of the law, that we -should be judges in our own cause. If, in national transactions like -this, interesting to our citizens only, the Government is to be supposed -one party, and the individual the other party, I would ask the gentleman -who is the judge? Can two parties exist in a well organized Government -to dispute about property, and have no judge? The very idea must induce -the gentleman to abandon his ground. It has been said, as the foundation -of an opinion, that there is a great similitude between a certificate -and a bond that is brought into court to demand payment upon; that no -opposition can be made; that no plea can be entered; but I would wish to -ask the gentleman who made the remark, as a professional man, whether -the want of consideration would not be a good plea? In Courts of Equity, -relief can be given against _prima facie_ evidence. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--I am a friend to the discussion of every principle on -which the great business before us may be supposed to turn, because I -have a great desire that they should be settled on full information, -that the public, as well as ourselves, may be satisfied with their -propriety. This leads me again to notice the arguments which have been -urged in favor of considering this body as judges or arbitrators between -the public and the individuals who have claims upon the public. - -It must appear to the satisfaction of every unprejudiced mind, from the -resolutions of the late Congress, that they acknowledge themselves a -party on behalf of the public, to every engagement they entered into for -services, supplies, or moneys loaned. If then it is admitted that the -late Congress were parties to the contract, we must agree that our -situation is precisely the same, because we stand in their shoes; and in -my former argument I urged, if we are parties we cannot be judges. - -Mr. JACKSON.--If there is no part of the debt of the United States -unliquidated, besides the two millions which the gentleman alludes to, -yet there is a very considerable part of what is in contemplation to -fund, as Continental debt, not at present ascertained. I mean the State -debts. The Secretary himself had no evidence before him, from which he -could make a probable guess of the amount; if these are to be assumed by -the General Government, I presume the General Government ought to be at -liberty duly to ascertain them; and, therefore, the amendment proposed -by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania ought to be admitted. - -The honorable gentlemen who are in opposition, contend that no sort of -discrimination ought to take place; yet from what they have let fall, on -this occasion, I am led to believe that they favor that part of the -report of the Secretary which makes a discrimination, in fact, equal to -a loss of one-third of the principal. What will hold good in one case -ought to hold good in another, and a discrimination might take place -upon the same principles, between those to whom the Government was -originally indebted, and who have never received satisfaction therefor, -and those who had nothing to do with the Government in the first -transaction; but have merely speculated, and purchased up the evidence -of an original debt. Some gentlemen think, that the claims of this -latter class merit a greater degree of attention, because by their -actions, they seem to have evinced a greater degree of confidence in the -Government than those who sold them. But, sir, these men have had more -information, they have been at the seat of Government, and knew what was -in contemplation before citizens of other parts of the Union could be -acquainted with it. There has been no kind of proportion of knowledge -between the two classes--to use the expression of a British Minister, -the reciprocity has been all on one side. The people in this city are -informed of all the motions of Government; they have sent out their -money, in swift sailing vessels, to purchase up the property of -uninformed citizens in the remote parts of the Union. Were those -citizens acquainted with our present deliberations, and assured of the -intention of Congress to provide for their just demands, they would be -on an equal footing; they would not incline to throw away their property -for considerations totally inadequate. Such attempts at fraud would -justify the Government in interfering in the transactions between -individuals, without a breach of the public faith; but this, sir, is not -the object of the present motion, it only goes so far as to ascertain -the amount of the debt, before we make provision for the payment; and -this appears to me to be proper upon every principle of justice and -discretion. - -Mr. BURKE wished the question postponed till to-morrow, as it was a -subject of such high importance. He moved the committee to rise; -whereupon the committee rose, and reported progress. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 10. - -_Public Credit._ - -The House again went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. BALDWIN in the -chair, on the report of the Secretary of the Treasury. - -Mr. SCOTT'S amendment being still under consideration. - -Mr. SCOTT.--Some time was spent yesterday in the consideration of this -subject; in my opinion, that time was not ill spent, nor would two or -three days more be ill spent in discussing the question, for it involves -in it the whole doctrine of discrimination and liquidation. If these two -great points are once settled, the way will be clear and open before us -to proceed to the discussion of the report: for if the principles of the -report are good, I believe the plan itself is good. I believe, upon the -principles which it holds forth, that it is wisely and judiciously drawn -out, and does great honor to the officer who framed it. But it is -incumbent on us to examine its principles before we adopt it; if they do -not consist with equity and justice among the several inhabitants of the -Union, they must be rejected. Now I doubt whether they consist with that -equity and justice; I think there are others on this floor who have -their doubts also. I wish, therefore, that we should coolly examine -those principles, consult our judgment and understanding, and when we -have collected all the information we can get from each other, we may -determine; and when we have determined this, and the two grand points I -have mentioned, our business will be easy. - -In support of the principles held out in the report, it is said that a -solemn contract is entered into that cannot be violated; that the debt -is ascertained and cannot be extinguished, but by the absolute payment -of what it acknowledged to be due. Now, I doubt whether the necessary -concomitants of a contract to the amount mentioned on the face of the -paper, really accompanies the public securities. Let us revert back to -the time that this contract was entered into. At the close of the war, -at the commencement of issuing final settlements, there was a demand -against the United States for real and essential services rendered; the -claimants came forward, and asked something for their demand. Congress -having no money to give them, offered something; what? A certificate to -a certain nominal amount; nay more, of a certain known value; the -nominal amount was twenty shillings, the certain known value was two and -sixpence. Did the soldier accept of this offer? Yes. On what principle -did he accept it? He knew it was putting the capstone on the building -which he had erected by his labor and cemented with his blood. I have -done you services, said he, to the amount of twenty shillings, but you -are poor and unable to pay me; I will accept now of your two and -sixpence, and give you a discharge. Thus, the soldier who had, through -blood and slaughter, established the liberties of his country, crowned -the whole by the sacrifice of pecuniary emoluments. His consent was -given to the contract, and he received two and sixpence in the pound. -Now, if there is any other contract existing like this, I cannot see it. -The soldier never received it, nor the officer who handed it out, never -believed it to be worth more than two and sixpence in the pound. It was -like compounding a debt by the consent of the creditor, and there an -equal liquidation ought to take place. If this reasoning is right, we -know the value at once of our paper currency; if it is not right, I -would wish to know upon what principle of rationality, a rate can be -established for the value of our certificates. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--I am convinced that the principles laid down by the -gentleman from Pennsylvania, if true, ought to effect the final -determination of this question; and if I was satisfied with them, I -should clearly vote with him. If I was convinced that the certificates, -at the time they were given out, were worth no more than 2_s._ 6_d._ in -the pound, and that the creditors received them at that price, in full -discharge of their demands, I should be very loath to raise them to so -great a value; I would treat them precisely the same as Continental -money. I should think that the public did complete justice by complying -with the terms of their contract; while this is a matter of dispute we -can never agree in our determination. But if I can show that this is not -the case, that he has not looked into the origin of this debt, so as to -be well ascertained of the fact, I hope he will give up his opinion, and -join with me in the conclusion. - -The debt of the United States is of four kinds; first, paper money; -second, money lent; third, the pay to the army, including commutation, -and the allowance for depreciation; and fourth, certificates, or -evidences of the debts due from the United States to individuals, for -supplies furnished, or services rendered at different periods of the -last war. As to the bills of credit, I mentioned yesterday that they -stand upon a different footing from the rest; because it was one of the -parties who ascertained their depreciation, contrary to the opinion of -the other, who had a desire of keeping them up to their nominal value. -The money loaned to the United States, is a debt which we are bound to -pay, on every principle of honor and justice; nor can it be said that -the certificate given to the person who loaned the money, was given as a -payment in discharge of the debt. With respect to the army, including -commutation, I shall beg leave to read two or three resolutions of -Congress, to show that Congress had a different idea of the certificates -they gave to the officers and soldiers, in evidence of the balance of -their account, which is still due. When they were first issued to the -soldiers, Congress guarded them from being transferable; but as the -soldiers could get nothing for them in that form, upon representation, -Congress passed another resolution, by which they were made -transferable, in order that the soldier might avail himself of the -acknowledgment of Congress in his favor; (the resolutions referred to -were in May, 1783, April, 1784, and June, 1784.) This recurrence to the -resolutions of Congress, under which the evidences of the debt were -issued, sufficiently explodes a supposition, that they were understood -to be worth no more than 2_s._ 6_d._ in the pound, at the time they were -issued and received. From the personal knowledge I have of the -transactions of that time, I can venture to say, that no idea of payment -was ever entertained. They were, in fact, and were so considered, -evidences of the liquidated and specific sums due to the creditors of -the United States. The step which Congress took for the benefit of the -army, in making their certificates transferable, so far from -accommodating them, would have proved a real injury. If the assignee had -supposed himself to stand in a less eligible situation than the -assignor, he never would have been induced to have given him the price -which he did. If the soldier had received a certificate of twenty -shillings, as only 2_s._ 6_d._ nobody would have inclined to have given -him 2_s._ 6_d._ for it, because he could never expect to obtain a -repayment of a greater sum, even in such money as Congress should find -convenient; upon every principle of assignation of debts or contracts, -such an idea ought to be reprobated. - -Mr. SEDGWICK.--I will express my idea on the point which the gentleman -has made an inquiry respecting, in a few words. I said, that I conceived -a delay of this business would endanger the peace of the Union by -diminishing the energy of the Government, without which this -constitution would be of no value. These are considerations which must -appear weighty and important, if justly considered by the committee. A -great and respectable body of our citizens are creditors of the United -States. There are a variety of opinions prevailing respecting their -claims, with respect to funding, discrimination, and interest. This -diversity of opinion may probably irritate and produce heats and -animosities, which may terminate in forming factions among the people. -The State debts may produce a difference between the General and -particular Governments. If the matter is taken up as the business of a -party, one may be pitted against the other, until, in the end, they -disturb the public tranquillity, or sacrifice the general welfare to -opposition and party spirit. Besides this, the reputation, the credit of -the Government is at stake; the public expectation is alive to all the -measures of Government at the present moment. They expect that justice -and equity will be administered as far as the abilities of our country -extend; it lies with the Legislature to realize this expectation. If -Congress pursue the present inquiry, and come to a determination without -delay, the public sentiment will be brought to a point, and a general -acquiescence may be expected; but if it is postponed to a future -session, such may be the effect of faction and disappointment during the -recess, that the probability is, that no one party will comprise a -sufficient number to comprehend the majority of the whole. - -Mr. JACKSON.--Do not gentlemen think there is some danger on the other -side? Will there not be ground of uneasiness when the soldier and the -meritorious citizen are called upon to pay the speculator more than ten -times the amount they ever received from him for their securities? I -believe, Mr. Chairman, there is more just reason of alarm on this than -on the other side of the question. - -A gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. HARTLEY) has noticed my arguments of -yesterday, respecting a funding system. I beg leave to make a few -observations in answer to him. He has said, that a funded debt is of -great advantage to a nation, and has adduced the situation of England as -a proof, founded on experience. But England is a solitary example, and -the force of that example dwindles into nothing, if we examine into the -real cause of her seeming affluence. She does not owe much of -respectability to her national debt; she owes the most of it, at -present, to the troubles of other countries, and when those have -subsided, the bubble of her credit may blow up, as did the South Sea -project, for Government stock can never be considered as cash. The stock -employed in agriculture, commerce, and manufactures may, by great -prospects of advantage, be diverted into the hands of brokers, for the -purpose of speculating further in the funds; but no real addition will -be made to the means of productive industry, nor was any thing of this -kind contemplated at the time funding was first introduced into England. -We learn from _Blackstone_, that the reason for establishing a national -debt, was in order to support a system of foreign politics, and to -establish the new succession at the revolution; because it was deemed -expedient to create a new interest, called the moneyed interest, in -favor of the Prince of Orange, in opposition to the landed interest, -which was supposed to be generally in favor of the king, who had -abdicated the throne. I hope there is no such reason existing here; our -Government, I trust, is firmly established without the assistance of -stock-jobbers. We ought to reign universally in the hearts of our -fellow-citizens, on account of the salutary tendency of our measures to -promote the general welfare, and not depend upon the support of a party, -who have no other cause to esteem us but because we realize their golden -dreams of unlooked-for success. - -Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--If we were about to contract debts for -the purpose of funding them, the observations of the gentleman from -Georgia would apply; but we have already contracted them, and the only -question is, shall we fund or pay? We must do one or the other. With -respect to the remark of Blackstone, he is writing of an enormous public -debt when he mentions it as injurious, because he expressly says, that -"a certain proportion of debt seems to be highly useful to a trading -people; but what proportion that is it is not for me to determine." To -be sure he adds afterwards, "that the present magnitude of our national -encumbrances very far exceeds all calculations of commercial benefit, -and is productive of the greatest inconveniences." And here I agree with -him: but our public debt is not of such enormous magnitude as to -counterbalance the good effects of throwing out such a quantity of a -stable paper as will answer all the purposes of a circulating medium. - -Mr. TUCKER.--I very much applaud the gentleman who made the motion now -before the committee, because he has boldly come forward to combat an -opinion so generally received in this place, that many thought it could -not be controverted by any man possessed of common honesty; and because -I am persuaded, that he has done it with an honorable intention of -substituting real and substantial justice, in the place of that which he -deems to be only the name and the shadow. - -Although it is probable I differ with the gentleman who moved the -amendment, I am inclined to think a discrimination of some kind is -equitable and necessary. I believe it may be fairly said, that there are -three classes of domestic creditors. The first, those who hold the -Continental bills of credit, which have been long out of circulation. -Second, those who hold certificates that were given for services or -supplies, in their own names. And, third, those who hold certificates by -purchase. I would wish to consider the obligation to each of these three -classes, and whether, in equity, some kind of discrimination may not be -made. On a strict and impartial examination, I am inclined to believe -they will not appear to be the same. I will now turn to the examination -of the first; namely, the holders of the Continental bills of credit. -The Secretary of the Treasury has reported in favor of some degree of -provision being made for them. But, sir, what is the situation of the -people who hold these bills? If I recollect rightly, the face of the -bills declares, that the bearer shall be entitled to receive so many -Spanish milled dollars as is therein expressed. When these bills were -issued, their real value was equal to their nominal value; no person -refused, or wished to refuse, them as such; but, in a short time, too -large a quantity were issued, and they began to depreciate. Congress -then recommended to the several States to pass tender-laws for the -support of their credit. This was done by all the States; and they -continued, in some of them, to pass as specie, under those laws, when -they were depreciated twenty, thirty, and forty for one. Those people, -who received them in this state, suffered a very great loss by an act of -the Government, and many were ruined by the measure. When these bills -had thus depreciated, Congress passed a resolution, calling them in at -forty for one. This ordinance of Congress immediately reduced the claims -of the first class of creditors by an arbitrary act of power. I do not -pretend to say that the measure was unnecessary, but it was rigorous to -deprive them of 39-40ths of their claims. Perhaps we cannot return to -all the transactions of that time, because it would involve the -Government in a thousand difficulties, and produce, perhaps, greater -evils than it would remedy. But there remains a claim upon our justice -to pay the holders one dollar, at least, for forty. By the act of -Congress, which I alluded to before, these bills were thrown out of -circulation, and have ever since lain in the hands of individuals. Now, -it appears to me, that, in equity, we ought to make all the reparation -in our power. Surely, then, we ought to allow interest on the principal -from the time the bills were scaled, and forced out of circulation. -These creditors, I take it, have a strong claim upon us; because the -Government has materially injured them, and the least satisfaction we -can give them, is to put this part of the debt on the best footing we -can; if we cannot do complete justice, let us approximate towards it as -far as it is in our power. The second class of our creditors have -obligations that are strong. It has been said, and generally passed -current as an incontrovertible opinion, that those who transferred their -certificates have conferred to the purchaser every claim they had upon -the public. I mean, sir, to deny this assertion. There is a claim which -they could not transfer, that is, a claim in equity;, they were entitled -to the principal sum when they presented their accounts to the United -States, and we ought, in justice, to have paid it at that time; but, -perhaps, from our inability to do this, we were obliged to force on them -a certificate of the balance, with a promise to pay them an annual -interest thereon; but a promise to pay the interest does not exonerate -us from paying the principal, as soon as we have it in our power. Now, -this is a claim which the original creditor, who parted with the -evidence of his debt, did not transfer to the person to whom he sold it. -The United States are under no contract with the purchaser who bought a -loaned debt, to pay him any thing more than what the paper specifies, -that is, to pay him the interest from year to year, but not the -principal, until we find it convenient. - -Then, with respect to the third class, if the residue of the revenue is -insufficient to pay them the interest on their whole principal, I would -give them certificates for such part as we are able to provide for the -payment of the interest upon, at six per cent., to be paid in the same -manner with the others. And I would give them other certificates for the -remainder, on a like interest of six per cent., the payment whereof -should commence at a fixed period, say three, four, or five years, as it -might be found that the increasing resources of our country would, -enable us to do; but I would undertake nothing now beyond our present -ability. - - -THURSDAY, February 11. - -[Mr. FITZSIMONS presented the address of the yearly (Quaker) meeting of -Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Western parts of Maryland -and Virginia, held at Philadelphia, against the continuance of the -African slave trade, and praying Congress to remove that reproach from -the land, and Mr. LAWRENCE presented an Address to the same effect from -the Society of Friends in New York.] - -Mr. HARTLEY moved to refer the Address of the annual assembly of -Friends, held at Philadelphia, to a committee; he thought it a mark of -respect due to so numerous and respectable a part of the community. - -Mr. WHITE seconded the motion. - -Mr. SMITH (of S. C.)--However respectable the petitioners may be, I hope -gentlemen will consider that others equally respectable are opposed to -the object which is aimed at, and are entitled to an opportunity of -being heard before the question is determined. I flatter myself -gentlemen will not press the point of commitment to-day, it being -contrary to our usual mode of procedure. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS.--If we were now to determine the final question, the -observation of the gentleman from South Carolina would apply; but, sir, -the present question does not touch upon the merits of the case; it is -merely to refer the memorial to a committee, to consider what is proper -to be done; gentlemen, therefore, who do not mean to oppose the -commitment to-morrow, may as well agree to it to-day, because it will -tend to save the time of the House. - -Mr. JACKSON wished to know why the second reading was to be contended -for to-day, when it was diverting the attention of the members from the -great object that was before the Committee of the Whole? Is it because -the feelings of the Friends will be hurt to have their affair conducted -in the usual course of business? Gentlemen, who advocate the second -reading to-day, should respect the feelings of the members who represent -that part of the Union which is principally affected by the measure. I -believe, sir, that the latter class consists of as useful and as good -citizens as the petitioners, men equally friends to the revolution, and -equally susceptible of the refined sensations of humanity and -benevolence. Why, then, should such particular attention be paid to -them, for bringing forward a business of questionable policy? If -Congress are disposed to interfere in the importation of slaves, they -can take the subject up without advisers, because the constitution -expressly mentions all the power they can exercise on the subject. - -Mr. SHERMAN suggested the idea of referring it to a committee, to -consist of a member from each State, because several States had already -made some regulations on this subject. The sooner the subject was taken -up he thought it would be the better. - -Mr. PARKER.--I hope, Mr. Speaker, the petition of these respectable -people will be attended to with all the readiness the importance of its -object demands; and I cannot help expressing the pleasure I feel in -finding so considerable a part of the community attending to matters of -such momentous concern to the future prosperity and happiness of the -people of America. I think it my duty, as a citizen of the Union, to -espouse their cause; and it is incumbent upon every member of this House -to sift the subject well, and ascertain what can be done to restrain a -practice so nefarious. The constitution has authorized us to levy a tax -upon the importation of such persons as the States shall authorize to be -admitted. I would willingly go to that extent; and if any thing further -can be devised to discountenance the trade, consistent with the terms of -the constitution, I shall cheerfully give it my assent and support. - -Mr. MADISON.--The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FITZSIMONS) has put -this question on its proper ground; if gentlemen do not mean to oppose -the commitment to-morrow, they may as well acquiesce in it to-day; and, -I apprehend, gentlemen need not be alarmed at any measure it is likely -Congress will take; because they will recollect, that the constitution -secures to the individual States the right of admitting, if they think -proper, the importation of slaves into their own territory, for -eighteen years yet unexpired; subject, however, to a tax, if Congress -are disposed to impose it, of not more than ten dollars on each person. -The petition, if I mistake not, speaks of artifices used by -self-interested persons to carry on this trade; and the petition from -New York states a case that may require the consideration of Congress. -If any thing is within the Federal authority to restrain such violation -of the rights of nations and of mankind, as is supposed to be practised -in some parts of the United States, it will certainly tend to the -interest and honor of the community to attempt a remedy, and is a proper -subject for our discussion. It may be, that foreigners take the -advantage of the liberty afforded them by the American trade, to employ -our shipping in the slave trade between Africa and the West Indies, when -they are restrained from employing their own by restrictive laws of -their nation. If this is the case, is there any person of humanity that -would not wish to prevent them? Another consideration why we should -commit the petition is, that we may give no ground of alarm by a serious -opposition, as if we were about to take measures that were -unconstitutional. - -Mr. _Stone_ feared that if Congress took any measures indicative of an -intention to interfere with the kind of property alluded to, it would -sink it in value very considerably, and might be injurious to a great -number of the citizens, particularly in the Southern States. He thought -the subject was of general concern, and that the petitioners had no more -right to interfere with it than any other members of the community. It -was an unfortunate circumstance, that it was the disposition of -religious sects to imagine they understood the rights of human nature -better than all the world besides; and that they would, in consequence, -be meddling with concerns in which they had nothing to do. As the -petition relates to a subject of a general nature, it ought to lie on -the table as information. He would never consent to refer petitions, -unless the petitioners were exclusively interested. Suppose there was a -petition to come before us from a society, praying us to be honest in -our transactions, or that we should administer the constitution -according to its intent, what would you do with a petition of this kind? -Certainly it would remain on your table. He would, however, not have it -supposed that the people had not a right to advise and give their -opinion upon public measures; but he would not be influenced by that -advice or opinion to take up a subject sooner than the convenience of -other business would admit. Unless he changed his sentiments, he would -oppose the commitment. - -Mr. BURKE thought gentlemen were paying attention to what did not -deserve it. The men in the gallery had come here to meddle in a business -with which they have nothing to do; they were volunteering in the cause -of others, who neither expected nor desired it. He had a respect for the -body of Quakers, but, nevertheless, he did not believe they had more -virtue or religion than other people, nor perhaps so much, if they were -examined to the bottom, notwithstanding their outward pretences. If -their petition is to be noticed, Congress ought to wait till counter -applications were made, and then they might have the subject more fairly -before them. The rights of the Southern States ought not to be -threatened, and their property endangered, to please people who would be -unaffected by the consequences. - -Mr. HARTLEY thought the memorialists did not deserve to be aspersed for -their conduct, if influenced by motives of benignity. They solicited the -Legislature of the Union, to prevent, as far as is in their power, the -increase of a licentious traffic; nor do they merit censure, because -their behavior has the appearance of more morality than other people. -Congress ought not to refuse to hear the applications of their -fellow-citizens, while those applications contain nothing -unconstitutional or offensive. What is the object of the address before -us? It is intended to bring before this House a subject of great -importance to the cause of humanity; there are certain facts to be -inquired into, and the memorialists are ready to give all the -information in their power; they are waiting, at a great distance from -their homes, and wish to return; if, then, it will be proper to commit -the petition to-morrow, it will be equally proper to-day, for it is -conformable to our practice; besides, it will tend to their conveniency. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--The gentleman from South Carolina says, the petitioners -are of a society not known in the laws or constitution. Sir, in all our -acts, as well as in the constitution, we have noticed this society; or, -why is it that we admit them to affirm in cases where others are called -upon to swear? If we pay this attention to them, in one instance, what -good reason is there for contemning them in another? I think the -gentleman from Maryland (Mr. STONE) carries his apprehensions too far, -when he fears that negro property will fall in value, by the suppression -of the slave trade; not that I suppose it immediately in the power of -Congress to abolish a traffic which is a disgrace to human nature; but -it appears to me, that, if the importation was crushed, the value of a -slave would be increased instead of diminished; however, considerations -of this kind have nothing to do with the present question. Gentlemen may -acquiesce in the commitment of the memorial, without pledging themselves -to support its object. - -Mr. JACKSON.--I differ much in opinion with the gentleman last up. I -apprehend, if through the interference of the General Government the -slave trade was abolished, it would evince to the people a disposition -towards a total emancipation, and they would hold their property in -jeopardy. Any extraordinary attention of Congress to this petition may -have, in some degree, a similar effect. I would beg to ask those, then, -who are desirous of freeing the negroes, if they have funds sufficient -to pay for them? If they have, they may come forward on that business -with some propriety; but, if they have not, they should keep themselves -quiet, and not interfere with a business in which they are not -interested. They may as well come forward and solicit Congress to -interdict the West India trade, because it is injurious to the morals of -mankind; from thence we import rum, which has a debasing influence upon -the consumer. But, sir, is the whole morality of the United States -confined to the Quakers? Are they the only people whose feelings are to -be consulted on this occasion? Is it to them we owe our present -happiness? Was it they who formed the constitution? Did they, by their -arms or contributions, establish our independence? I believe they were -generally opposed to that measure: why, then, on their application, -should we injure men who, at the risk of their lives and fortunes, -secured to the community their liberty and property? If Congress pay any -uncommon degree of attention to their petition, it will furnish just -ground of alarm to the Southern States. But why do these men set -themselves up in such a particular manner against slavery? Do they -understand the rights of mankind, and the disposition of Providence, -better than others? If they were to consult that book, which claims our -regard, they will find that slavery is not only allowed but commended. -Their Saviour, who possessed more benevolence and commiseration than -they pretend to, has allowed of it: and if they fully examine the -subject, they will find that slavery has been no novel doctrine since -the days of Cain; but be these things as they may, I hope the House will -order the petition to lie on the table, in order to prevent an alarm to -our Southern brethren. - -Mr. SEDGWICK.--If it was a serious question whether the memorial should -be committed or not, I would not urge it at this time; but that cannot -be a question for a moment, if we consider our relative situation with -the people. A number of men, who are certainly very respectable, and of -whom, as a society, it may be said with truth, that they conform their -moral conduct to their religious tenets, as much as any people in the -whole community, come forward and tell you, that you may effect two -objects by the exercise of a constitutional authority, which will give -great satisfaction. On the one hand, you may acquire revenue, and on the -other, restrain a practice productive of great evil. Now, setting aside -the religious motives which influence their application, have they not a -right as citizens to give their opinion of public measures? For my part, -I do not apprehend that any State, or any considerable number of -individuals in any State, will be seriously alarmed at the commitment of -the petition, from a fear that Congress intend to exercise an -unconstitutional authority, in order to violate their rights. I believe -there is not a wish of the kind entertained by any member of this body; -how can gentlemen hesitate, then, to pay that respect to a memorial -which it is entitled to, according to the ordinary mode of procedure in -business? Why shall we defer doing that till to-morrow, which we can do -to-day; for the result, I apprehend, will be the same in either case. - -Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina.)--The question, I apprehend, is whether -we will take the petition up for a second reading, and not whether it -shall be committed? Now, I oppose this, because it is contrary to our -usual practice, and does not allow gentlemen time to consider of the -merits of the prayer. Perhaps some gentlemen may think it improper to -commit it to so large a committee as has been mentioned; a variety of -causes may be supposed to show that such a hasty decision is improper; -perhaps the prayer of it is improper. If I understood it right on its -first reading, though to be sure I did not comprehend perfectly all that -the petition contained, it prays that we should take measures for the -abolition of the slave trade. This is desiring an unconstitutional act, -because the constitution secures that trade to the States, independent -of Congressional restrictions, for a term of twenty-one years. If, -therefore, it prays for a violation of constitutional rights, it ought -to be rejected as an attempt upon the virtue and patriotism of the -House. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--It has been said, that the Quakers have no right to -interfere in this business. I am surprised to hear this doctrine -advanced, after it has been so lately contended and settled, that the -people have a right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances. -It is not because the petition comes from the society of Quakers that I -am in favor of the commitment, but because it comes from citizens of the -United States who are equally concerned in the welfare and happiness of -their country with others. There certainly is no foundation for the -apprehensions which seem to prevail in gentlemen's minds. If the -petitioners were so uninformed as to suppose that Congress could be -guilty of a violation of the constitution, yet I trust we know our duty -better than to be led astray by an application from any man or set of -men whatever. I do not consider the merits of the main question to be -before us; it will be time enough to give our opinions upon that when -the committee have reported. If it is in our power, by recommendation, -or any other way, to put a stop to the slave trade in America, I do not -doubt of its policy; but how far the constitution will authorize us to -attempt to depress it, will be a question well worthy of our -consideration. - -Mr. SHERMAN observed, that the petitioners from New York stated, that -they had applied to the Legislature of that State to prohibit certain -practices which they conceived to be improper, and which tended to -injure the well-being of the community; that the Legislature had -considered the application, but had applied no remedy, because they -supposed that power was exclusively vested in the General Government -under the Constitution of the United States; it would, therefore, be -proper to commit that petition, in order to ascertain what are the -powers of the General Government in the case. - -Mr. GERRY thought gentlemen were out of order in entering upon the -merits of the main question at this time, when they were considering the -expediency of committing the petition. He should, therefore, not follow -them further in that track than barely to observe, that it was the right -of the citizens to apply for redress, in every case in which they -conceived themselves aggrieved; and it was the duty of Congress to -afford redress as far as in their power. That their Southern brethren -had been betrayed into the slave trade by the first settlers, was to be -lamented; they were not to be reflected on for not viewing this subject -in a different light, the prejudice of education is eradicated with -difficulty; but he thought nothing would excuse the General Government -for not exerting itself to prevent, as far as they constitutionally -could, the evils resulting from such enormities as were alluded to by -the petitioners; and the same considerations induced him highly to -commend the part the Society of Friends had taken; it was the cause of -humanity they had interested themselves in, and he wished, with them, to -see measures pursued by every nation, to wipe off the indelible stain -which the slave trade had brought upon all who were concerned in it. - -Mr. MADISON thought the question before the committee was no otherwise -important than as gentlemen made it so by their serious opposition. Had -they permitted the commitment of the memorial, as a matter of course, no -notice would have been taken of it out of doors; it could never have -been blown up into a decision of the question respecting the -discouragement of the African slave-trade, nor alarm the owners with an -apprehension that the General Government were about to abolish slavery -in all the States; such things are not contemplated by any gentleman; -but they excite alarm by their extended objections to committing the -memorials. Gentlemen may vote for the commitment of the petition without -any intention of supporting the prayer of it. - -Mr. WHITE would not have seconded the motion, if he had thought it would -have brought on a lengthy debate. He conceived that a business of this -kind ought to be decided without much discussion; it had constantly been -the practice of the House, and he did not suppose there was any reason -for a deviation. - -Mr. PAGE said, if the memorial had been presented by any individual, -instead of the respectable body from whom it emanated, he should have -voted in favor of a commitment, because it was the duty of the -Legislature to attend to subjects brought before them by their -constituents; if, upon inquiry, it was discovered to be improper to -comply with the prayer of the petitioners, he would say so, and they -would be satisfied. - -Mr. STONE thought the business ought to be left to take its usual -course; by the rules of the House, it was expressly declared that -petitions, memorials, and other papers, addressed to the House should -not be debated or decided on the day they were first read. - -Mr. BALDWIN felt at a loss to account why precipitation was used on this -occasion, contrary to the customary usage of the House. He had not heard -a single reason advanced in favor of it. To be sure it was said the -petitioners are a respectable body of men; he did not deny it; but -certainly gentlemen did not suppose they were paying respect to them or -to the House, when they urged such a hasty procedure. It was contrary to -his idea of respect, and the idea the House had always expressed, when -they had important subjects under consideration; and, therefore, he -should be against the motion. He was afraid that there was really a -little volunteering in this business, as it had been termed by the -gentleman from Georgia. - -Mr. HUNTINGTON considered the petitioners as much disinterested as any -persons in the United States; he was persuaded they had an aversion to -slavery, yet they were not singular in this; others had the same; and he -hoped, when Congress took up the subject, they would go as far as -possible to prohibit the evil complained of. But he thought that would -be better done by considering it in the light of revenue; when the -Committee of the Whole on questions of finance might properly take the -subject into consideration, without giving any ground for alarm. - -Mr. TUCKER.--I have no doubt on my mind respecting what ought to be done -on this occasion; so far from committing the memorial, we ought to -dismiss it without further notice. What is the purport of the memorial? -It is plainly this, to reprobate a particular kind of commerce, in a -moral point of view, and to request the interposition of Congress to -effect its abrogation. But Congress has no authority, under the -constitution, to do more than lay a duty of ten dollars upon each person -imported; and this is a political consideration, not arising from either -religion or morality, and is the only principle upon which we can -proceed to take it up. But what effect do these men suppose will arise -from their exertions? Will a duty of ten dollars diminish the -importation? Will the treatment be better than usual? I apprehend not; -nay, it may be worse, because an interference with the subject may -excite a great degree of restlessness in the minds of those it is -intended to serve, and that may be a cause for the masters to use more -rigor towards them than they would otherwise exert: so that these men -seem to overshoot their object. But if they will endeavor to procure the -abolition of the slave trade, let them prefer their petitions to the -State Legislatures, who alone have the power of forbidding the -importation. I believe their applications there would be improper; but -if they are any where proper, it is there. I look upon the address then -to be ill-judged, however good the intention of the framers. - -Mr. SMITH claimed it as a right that the petition should lie over till -to-morrow. - - -THURSDAY, February 11. - -_Assumption of State Debts._ - - [Mr. MADISON's motion to discriminate between original - creditors and present holders, so as to pay claims in full - to the former, and the highest market price to the - assignee, and the remainder to the original creditor.] - -The House then again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole upon -the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair. - -Mr. BURKE's amendment being under consideration, - -Mr. BURKE said, he had brought his motion forward, in consequence of a -hasty promise he had given a member of this House; but as he did not -mean to support it, or vote for it, he would withdraw it. - -Mr. MADISON.--No gentleman, Mr. Chairman, has expressed more strongly -than I feel, the importance and difficulty of the subject before us. -Although I have endeavored to view it under all its aspects, and analyze -it in all its principles, yet have I kept my mind open, and been anxious -to aid my own reflections by the reflected light to be expected from -gentlemen on this floor who enter into the discussion. For this purpose, -I have chosen hitherto rather to be a hearer than a speaker on the -subject, and should even at this moment have continued in my seat, but -that the turn which the business has taken, renders it requisite for me -now, if at all, to trouble the committee with my reflections, and the -opinion in which they have terminated. - -It has been said, by some gentlemen, that the debt itself does not exist -in the extent and form which is generally supposed. I confess, sir, I -differ altogether from the gentleman who takes that ground. Let us -consider, first, by whom the debt was contracted, and then let us -consider to whom it is due. The debt was contracted by the United -States, who, with respect to that particular transaction, were in a -national capacity. The Government was nothing more than the agent or -organ, by which the whole body of the people acted. The change in the -Government which has taken place has enlarged its national capacity, but -it has not varied the national obligation, with respect to the -engagements entered into by that transaction. For, in like manner, the -present Government is nothing more than the organ, or agent, of the -public. The obligation which they are under, is precisely the same with -that under which the debt was contracted; although the Government has -been changed, the nation remains the same. There is no change in our -political duty, nor in the moral or political obligation. The language I -now use, sir, is the language of the constitution itself; it declares -that all debts shall have the same validity against the United States, -under the new, as under the old form of Government. The obligation -remains the same, though I hope experience will prove that the ability -has been favorably varied. - -The next question is, to what amount the public are at present indebted? -I conceive the question may be answered in a few words. The United -States owe the value they received, which they acknowledge, and which -they have promised to pay: what is that value? It is a certain sum in -principal, bearing an interest of six per cent. No logic, no magic, in -my opinion, can diminish the force of the obligation. - -The only point on which we can deliberate is, to whom the payment is -really due; for this purpose, it will be proper to take notice of the -several descriptions of people who are creditors of the Union, and lay -down some principles respecting them, which may lead us to a just and -equitable decision. As there is a small part of the debt yet -unliquidated, it may be well to pass it by and come to the great mass of -the liquidated debt. It may here be proper to notice four classes into -which it may be divided: - - _First_, Original creditors, who have never alienated their - securities. - - _Second_, Original creditors who have alienated. - - _Third_, Present holders of alienated securities. - - _Fourth_, Intermediate holders, through whose hands - securities have circulated. - -The only principles that can govern the decision on their respective -pretensions, I take to be, 1. Public Justice; 2. Public Faith; 3. Public -Credit; 4. Public Opinion. - -With respect to the first class, there can be no difficulty. Justice is -in their favor, for they have advanced the value which they claim; -public faith is in their favor, for the written promise is in their -hands; respect for public credit is in their favor, for if claims so -sacred are violated, all confidence must be at an end; public opinion is -in their favor, for every honest citizen cannot but be their advocate. - -With respect to the last class, the intermediate holders, their -pretensions, if they have any, will lead us into a labyrinth, for which -it is impossible to find a clew. This will be the less complained of, -because this class were perfectly free, both in becoming and ceasing to -be creditors; and because, in general, they must have gained by their -speculations. - -The only rival pretensions, then, are those of the original creditors, -who have assigned, and of the present holders of the assignments. - -The former may appeal to justice, because the value of the money, the -service, or the property advanced by them, has never been really paid -to them. - -They may appeal to good faith, because the value stipulated and -expected, is not satisfied by the steps taken by the Government. The -certificates put into the hands of the creditors, on closing their -settlements with the public, were of less real value than was -acknowledged to be due; they may be considered as having been forced, in -fact, on the receivers. They cannot, therefore, be fairly adjudged an -extinguishment of the debt. They may appeal to the motives for -establishing public credit, for which justice and faith form the natural -foundation. They may appeal to the precedent furnished by the -compensation allowed to the army during the late war, for the -depreciation of bills, which nominally discharged the debts. They may -appeal to humanity, for the sufferings of the military part of the -creditors can never be forgotten, while sympathy is an American virtue. -To say nothing of the singular hardship, in so many months, of requiring -those who have lost four-fifths, or seven-eighths of their due, to -contribute the remainder in favor of those who have gained in the -contrary proportion. - -On the other hand, the holders by assignment have claims, which I by no -means wish to depreciate. They will say, that whatever pretensions -others may have against the public, these cannot affect the validity of -theirs. That if they gain by the risk taken upon themselves, it is but -the just reward of that risk. That as they hold the public promise, they -have an undeniable demand on the public faith. That the best foundation -of public credit is that adherence to literal engagements on which it -has been erected by the most flourishing nations. That if the new -Government should swerve from so essential a principle, it will be -regarded by all the world as inheriting the infirmities of the old. Such -being the interfering claims on the public, one of three things must be -done; either pay both, reject wholly one or the other, or make a -_composition_ between them on some principle of equity. To pay both is -perhaps beyond the public ability; and as it would far exceed the value -received by the public, it will not be expected by the world, nor even -by the creditors themselves. To reject wholly the claims of either is -equally inadmissible; such a sacrifice of those who possess the written -engagements would be fatal to the proposed establishment of public -credit; it would moreover punish those who had put their trust in the -public promises and resources. To make the other class the sole victims -is an idea at which human nature recoils. - -A composition, then, is the only expedient that remains; let it be a -liberal one in favor of the present holders, let them have the highest -price which has prevailed in the market; and let the residue belong to -the original sufferers. This will not do perfect justice; but it will do -more real justice, and perform more of the public faith, than any other -expedient proposed. The present holders, where they have purchased at -the lowest price of the securities, will have a profit that cannot -reasonably be complained of; where they have purchased at a higher -price, the profit will be considerable; and even the few who have -purchased at the highest price cannot well be losers, with a well funded -interest of six per cent. The original sufferers will not be fully -indemnified; but they will receive, from their country, a tribute due to -their merits, which, if it does not entirely heal their wounds, will -assuage the pain of them. I am aware, that many plausible objections -will lie against what I have suggested, some of which I foresee and will -take some notice of. It will be said, that the plan is impracticable; -should this be demonstrated, I am ready to renounce it; but it does not -appear to me in that light. I acknowledge that such a scale as has often -been a subject of conversation, is impracticable. - -The discrimination proposed by me, requires nothing more than a -knowledge of the present holders, which will be shown by the -certificates; and of the original holders, which the office documents -will show. It may be objected, that if the Government is to go beyond -the literal, into the equitable claims against the United States, it -ought to go back to every case where injustice has been done. To this -the answer is obvious: the case in question is not only different from -others in point of magnitude and of practicability, but forces itself on -the attention of the committee, as necessarily involved in the business -before them. It may be objected, that public credit will suffer, -especially abroad; I think this danger will be effectually obviated by -the honesty and disinterestedness of the Government displayed in the -measure, by a continuance of the punctual discharge of foreign interest, -by the full provision to be made for the whole foreign debt, and the -equal punctuality I hope to see in the future payments on the domestic -debts. I trust also, that all future loans will be founded on a previous -establishment of adequate funds; and that a situation, like the present, -will be thereby rendered impossible. - -I cannot but regard the present case as so extraordinary, in many -respects, that the ordinary maxims are not strictly applicable to it. -The fluctuations of stock in Europe, so often referred to, have no -comparison with those in the United States. The former never exceeded -50, 60, or 70 per cent.: can it be said, that because a Government -thought this evil insufficient to justify an interference, it would view -in the same light a fluctuation amounting to seven or eight hundred per -cent. - -I am of opinion, that were Great Britain, Holland, or any other country, -to fund its debts precisely in the same situation as the American debt, -some equitable interference of the Government would take place. The -South Sea scheme, in which a change, amounting to one thousand per cent. -happened in the value of stock, is well known to have produced an -interference, and without any injury whatever to the subsequent credit -of the nation. It is true, that in many respects, the case differed from -that of the United States; but, in other respects, there is a degree of -similitude, which warrants the conjecture. It may be objected, that such -a provision as I propose will exceed the public ability; I do not think -the public unable to discharge honorably all its engagements, or that it -will be unwilling, if the appropriations shall be satisfactory. I -regret, as much as any member, the unavoidable weight and duration of -the burthens to be imposed; having never been a proselyte to the -doctrine, that public debts are public benefits. I consider them, on the -contrary, as evils which ought to be removed as fast as honor and -justice will permit, and shall heartily join in the means necessary for -that purpose. I conclude with declaring, as my opinion, that if any case -were to happen among individuals, bearing an analogy to that of the -public, a Court of Equity would interpose for its redress; or that if a -tribunal existed on earth, by which nations could be compelled to do -right, the United States would be compelled to do something not -dissimilar in its principles to what I have contended for. - -Mr. LIVERMORE wished the amendment he had formerly mentioned might be -made to the original proposition; it was, to insert, before the word -"interest," the words, "at a certain rate o." - -Mr. SHERMAN apprehended it would strongly imply that Congress meant to -reduce the rate of interest, and he did not wish that question involved -with the present. - -Mr. LIVERMORE's motion being seconded, the question was put thereon, and -it being lost, - -Mr. MADISON moved to amend the original proposition, so as to read as -follows: - - _Resolved_, That adequate funds ought to be provided for - paying the interest and principal of the domestic debt, as - the same shall be liquidated; and that in such liquidation, - the present holders of public securities, which have been - alienated, shall be settled with according to the highest - market rate of such securities; and that the balance of the - sums due from the public, be paid in such proportion to the - original holder of such securities. - -Mr. BOUDINOT said, he had long been in the habit of paying great respect -to the sentiments of the gentleman from Virginia; but he feared, on this -occasion, he had not viewed the subject with his usual accuracy. He was -not surprised that the gentleman was led away by the dictates of his -heart, for he believed he really felt for the misfortunes of his -fellow-citizens, who had been the prey of avaricious men. Indeed, it is -matter of less surprise, on another account, for heretofore I -contemplated the subject in nearly the same point of view. Influenced by -a desire to do justice to every person connected with the public, I -wished for the means of compensating the original holders, who had sold -their certificates at a great loss; but I found the thing, upon long and -careful examination, to be both unjust and impracticable. - -The honorable gentleman tells us, that the debt was contracted for -meritorious services, and inquires whether the creditor received an -adequate compensation in full discharge? I say, sir, this debt is still -due, and that the person to whom it is due, has received nothing but a -certificate as evidence of his claim; but then, if any of our first -creditors have put another person in their shoes, the question will -arise, are we to disown the act of the party himself? Are we to say, we -will not be bound by your transfer, we will not treat with your -representative, but insist upon a resettlement with you alone? But the -same reasoning will oblige us to go further, and investigate all the -claims of those who have received of the Government Continental money, -which they afterwards parted with for ten, forty, or one hundred for -one. - - -FRIDAY, February 12. - -_Abolition of Slavery._ - -The following memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the -Abolition of Slavery, the relief of free negroes unlawfully held in -bondage, and the improvement of the condition of the African race, was -presented and read: - -The memorial respectfully showeth, - - That from a regard for the happiness of mankind, an - association was formed several years since in this State, - by a number of her citizens, of various religious - denominations, for promoting the abolition of slavery, and - for the relief of those unlawfully held in bondage. A just - and acute conception of the true principles of liberty, as - it spread through the land, produced accessions to their - numbers, many friends to their cause, and a Legislative - co-operation with their views, which, by the blessing of - Divine Providence, have been successfully directed to the - relieving from bondage a large number of their - fellow-creatures of the African race. They have also the - satisfaction to observe, that in consequence of that spirit - of philanthropy and genuine liberty which is generally - diffusing its beneficial influence, similar institutions - are forming at home and abroad. - - That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, - alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the - enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us - to believe, and the political creed of Americans fully - coincides with the position. Your memorialists, - particularly engaged in attending to the distresses arising - from slavery, believe it their indispensable duty to - present this subject to your notice. They have observed, - with real satisfaction, that many important and salutary - powers are vested in you for "promoting the welfare and - securing the blessings of liberty to the people of the - United States;" and as they conceive that these blessings - ought rightfully to be administered, without distinction of - color, to all descriptions of people, so they indulge - themselves in the pleasing expectation, that nothing which - can be done for the relief of the unhappy objects of their - care will be either omitted or delayed. - - From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the - portion, and is still the birthright of all men; and - influenced by the strong ties of humanity, and the - principles of their institution, your memorialists conceive - themselves bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen - the bands of slavery, and promote a general enjoyment of - the blessings of freedom. Under these impressions, they - earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of - slavery; that you will be pleased to countenance the - restoration of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone, in - this land of freedom, are degraded into perpetual bondage, - and who, amidst the general joy of surrounding freemen, are - groaning in servile subjection; that you will devise means - for removing this inconsistency from the character of the - American people; that you will promote mercy and justice - towards this distressed race, and that you will step to the - very verge of the power vested in you for discouraging - every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men. - - BENJ. FRANKLIN, _President_. - - PHILADELPHIA, _February_ 3, 1790. - -Mr. HARTLEY then called up the memorial presented yesterday, from the -annual meeting of Friends at Philadelphia, for a second reading; -whereupon the same was read a second time, and moved to be committed. - -Mr. TUCKER was sorry the petition had a second reading, as he conceived -it contained an unconstitutional request, and from that consideration he -wished it thrown aside. He feared the commitment of it would be a very -alarming circumstance to the Southern States; for if the object was to -engage Congress in an unconstitutional measure, it would be considered -as an interference with their rights, the people would become very -uneasy under the Government, and lament that they ever put additional -powers into their hands. He was surprised to see another memorial on the -same subject; and that signed by a man who ought to have known the -constitution better. He thought it a mischievous attempt, as it -respected the persons in whose favor it was intended. It would buoy them -up with hopes, without a foundation, and as they could not reason on the -subject, as more enlightened men would, they might be led to do what -they would be punished for, and the owners of them, in their own -defence, would be compelled to exercise over them a severity they were -not accustomed to. Do these men expect a general emancipation of slaves -by law? This would never be submitted to by the Southern States without -a civil war. Do they mean to purchase their freedom? He believed their -money would fall short of the price. But how is it they are more -concerned in this business than others? Are they the only persons who -possess religion and morality? If the people are not so exemplary, -certainly they will admit the clergy are; why, then, do we not find them -uniting in a body, praying us to adopt measures for the promotion of -religion and piety, or any moral object? They know it would be an -improper interference; and to say the best of this memorial, it is an -act of imprudence, which he hoped would receive no countenance from the -House. - -Mr. SENEY denied that there was any thing unconstitutional in the -memorial; at least, if there was it had escaped his attention, and he -should be obliged to the gentleman to point it out. Its only object was, -that Congress should exercise their constitutional authority to abate -the horrors of slavery, as far as they could; indeed, he considered that -all altercation on the subject of commitment was at an end, as the House -had impliedly determined yesterday that it should be committed. - -Mr. BURKE saw the disposition of the House, and he feared it would be -referred to a committee, maugre all their opposition; but he must -insist, that it prayed for an unconstitutional measure; did it not -desire Congress to interfere and abolish the slave trade, while the -constitution expressly stipulates that Congress shall exercise no such -power? He was certain the commitment would sound an alarm, and blow the -trumpet of sedition in the Southern States. He was sorry to see the -petitioners paid more attention to than the constitution; however, he -would do his duty and oppose the business totally; and if it was -referred to a committee, as mentioned yesterday, consisting of a member -from each State, and he was appointed, he would decline serving. - -Mr. SCOTT.--I cannot entertain a doubt but the memorial is strictly -agreeable to the constitution; it respects a part of the duty -particularly assigned to us by that instrument, and I hope we may be -inclined to take it into consideration. We can at present lay our hands -upon a small duty of ten dollars; I would take this, and if it is all -that we can do, we must be content: but I am sorry that the framers of -the constitution did not go further, and enable us to interdict the -traffic entirely; for I look upon the slave trade to be one of the most -abominable things on earth; and if there was neither God nor devil, I -should oppose it upon the principles of humanity, and the law of nature. -I cannot, for my part, conceive how any person can be said to acquire a -property in another; is it by virtue of conquest? What are the rights of -conquest? Some have dared to advance this monstrous principle, that the -conqueror is absolute master of his conquest; that he may dispose of it -as his property, and treat it as he pleases; but, enough of those who -reduce men to the state of transferable goods, or use them like beasts -of burthen, who deliver them up as property or patrimony to others. Let -us argue on principles countenanced by reason and becoming humanity; the -petitioners view the subject in a religious light, but I do not stand in -need of religious motives to induce me to reprobate the traffic in human -flesh; other considerations weigh with me to support the commitment of -the memorial, and to support every constitutional measure likely to -bring about its total abolition. Perhaps, in our Legislative capacity, -we can go no further than to impose a duty of ten dollars; but I do not -know how far I might go, if I was one of the Judges of the United -States, and those people were to come before me and claim their -emancipation; but I am sure I would go as far as I could. - -Mr. JACKSON differed with the gentleman last up, and supposed the master -had a qualified property in his slave. He said the contrary doctrine -would go to the destruction of every species of personal service. The -gentleman said, he did not stand in need of religion to induce him to -reprobate slavery, but if he is guided by that evidence upon which the -Christian system is founded, he will find that religion is not against -it. He will see, from Genesis to Revelations, the current setting strong -that way. There never was a Government on the face of the earth, but -what permitted slavery. The purest sons of freedom in the Grecian -Republics, the citizens of Athens and Lacedæmon, all held slaves. On -this principle the nations of Europe are associated; it is the basis of -the feudal system. But suppose all this to have been wrong, let me ask -the gentleman if it is good policy to bring forward a business at this -moment, likely to light up the flame of civil discord; for the people of -the Southern States will resist one tyranny as soon as another? The -other parts of the continent may bear them down by force of arms, but -they will never suffer themselves to be divested of their property -without a struggle. The gentleman says, if he was a Federal Judge, he -does not know to what length he would go in emancipating these people; -but I believe his judgment would be of short duration in Georgia, -perhaps even the existence of such a judge might be in danger. - -Mr. SHERMAN could see no difficulty in committing the memorial; because -it was probable the committee would understand their business, and -perhaps they might bring in such a report as would be satisfactory to -gentlemen on both sides of the House. - -Mr. BALDWIN was sorry the subject had ever been brought before Congress, -because it was of a delicate nature as it respected some of the States. -Gentlemen who had been present at the formation of this constitution -could not avoid the recollection of the pain and difficulty which the -subject caused in that body. The members from the Southern States were -so tender upon this point, that they had well-nigh broken up without -coming to any determination; however, from the extreme desire of -preserving the Union, and obtaining an efficient Government, they were -induced mutually to concede, and the constitution jealously guarded what -they agreed to. If gentlemen look over the footsteps of that body, they -will find the greatest degree of caution used to imprint them, so as not -to be easily eradicated; but the moment we go to jostle on that ground, -I fear we shall feel it tremble under our feet. Congress have no power -to interfere with the importation of slaves beyond what is given in the -ninth section of the first article of the constitution; every thing -else is interdicted to them in the strongest terms. If we examine the -constitution, we shall find the expressions relative to this subject -cautiously expressed, and more punctiliously guarded than any other -part, "The migration or importation of such persons shall not be -prohibited by Congress." But lest this should not have secured the -object sufficiently, it is declared, in the same section, "That no -capitation or direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the -census;" this was intended to prevent Congress from laying any special -tax upon negro slaves, as they might, in this way, so burthen the -possessors of them as to induce a general emancipation. If we go on to -the fifth article, we shall find the first and fifth clauses of the -ninth section of the first article restrained from being altered before -the year 1808. - -Gentlemen have said that this petition does not pray for an abolition of -the slave trade. I think, sir, it prays for nothing else; and therefore -we have no more to do with it than if it prayed us to establish an order -of nobility, or a national religion. - -Mr. SYLVESTER said, that he had always been in the habit of respecting -the Society called Quakers; he respected them for their exertions in the -cause of humanity; but he thought the present was not a time to enter -into a consideration of the subject, especially as he conceived it to be -a business within the province of the State Legislatures. - -Mr. LAWRENCE observed, that the subject would undoubtedly come under the -consideration of the House; and he thought, as it was now before them, -that the present time was as proper as any; he was therefore for -committing the memorial, and when the prayer of it had been properly -examined, they could see how far Congress may, constitutionally, -interfere: as they knew the limits of their power on this, as well as -every other occasion, there was no just apprehension to be entertained -that they would go beyond it. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) insisted that it was not in the power of -the House to grant the prayer of the petition, which went to the total -abolishment of the slave trade, and it was therefore unnecessary to -commit it. He observed, that in the Southern States difficulties had -arisen on adopting the constitution, inasmuch as it was apprehended that -Congress might take measures under it for abolishing the slave trade. - -Perhaps the petitioners, when they applied to this House, did not think -their object unconstitutional, but now they are told that it is, they -will be satisfied with the answer, and press it no further. If their -object had been for Congress to lay a duty of ten dollars per head on -the importation of slaves, they would have said so, but that does not -appear to have been the case. The commitment of the petition, on that -ground, cannot be contended. If they will not be content with that, -shall it be committed to investigate facts? The petition speaks of -none. For what purpose, then, shall it be committed? If gentlemen can -assign no good reason for the measure, they will not support it when -they are told that it will create jealousies and alarm in the Southern -States; for I can assure them that there is no point on which they are -more jealous and suspicious, than on a business with which they think -the Government has nothing to do. - -When we entered into this confederacy, we did it from political, not -from moral motives, and I do not think my constituents want to learn -morals from the petitioners; I do not believe they want improvements in -their moral system; if they do, they can get it at home. - -The gentleman from Georgia has justly stated the jealousy of the -Southern States. On entering into this Government, they apprehend that -the other States, not knowing the necessity the citizens of the Southern -States were under to hold this species of property, would, from motives -of humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general emancipation; -and had they not seen that the constitution provided against the effect -of such a disposition, I may be bold to say they never would have -adopted it. And, notwithstanding all the calmness with which some -gentlemen have viewed the subject, they will find that this discussion -alone will create great alarm. We have been told, that if this would be -the case, we ought to have avoided it, by saying nothing; but it was not -for that purpose that we were sent here. We look upon this measure as an -attack upon the palladium of the property of our country; it is -therefore our duty to oppose it by every means in our power. Gentlemen -should consider, that when we entered into a political connection with -the other States, that this property was there; it was acquired under a -former Government, conformably to the laws and constitution, therefore -any thing that will tend to deprive them of that property, must be an -_ex post facto_ law, and, as such, is forbidden by our political -compact. - -I said the States would never have entered into the Confederation, -unless their property had been guarantied to them, for such is the state -of agriculture in that country, that without slaves it must be -abandoned. Why will these people, then, make use of arguments to induce -the slave to turn his hand against his master? We labor under -difficulties enough from the ravages of the late war. A gentleman can -hardly come from that country with a servant or two, either to this -place or Philadelphia, but there are persons trying to seduce his -servants to leave him; and, when they have done this, the poor wretches -are obliged to rob their master, in order to obtain a subsistence; all -those, therefore, who are concerned in this seduction, are accessories -to the robbery. - -The reproaches which they cast upon the owners of negro property, is -charging them with the want of humanity. I believe the proprietors have -as much humanity as persons in any part of the continent, and are as -conspicuous for their good morals as their neighbors. It was said -yesterday that the Quakers are a society known to the laws and the -constitution, but they are no more so than other religious societies; -they stand exactly in the same situation; their memorial, therefore, -relates to a matter in which they are no more interested than any other -sect, and can only be considered as a piece of advice, which it is not -customary to refer to a committee; but if it is supposed to pray for -what they think a moral purpose, is that sufficient to induce us to -commit it? What may appear a moral virtue in their eyes, may not be so -in reality. I have heard of a sect of Shaking Quakers, who, I presume, -suppose their tenets of a moral tendency. I am informed one of them -forbids to intermarry, yet you may see them with a numerous offspring -about them. Now, if these people were to petition Congress to pass a law -prohibiting matrimony, would gentlemen agree to refer such a petition? I -think if they would reject one of that nature, as improper, they ought -also to reject this. - -Mr. PAGE was in favor of the commitment. He hoped that the designs of -the respectable memoralists would not be stopped at the threshold, in -order to preclude a fair discussion of the prayer of the memorial. He -observed, that gentlemen had founded their arguments upon a -misrepresentation; for the object of the memorial is not declared to be -the total abolition of the slave trade, but that Congress will consider -whether it be not in reality within their power to exercise justice and -mercy, which, if adhered to, they cannot doubt must produce the -abolition of the slave trade. If, then, the prayer contained nothing -unconstitutional, he trusted the meritorious effort of the petitioners -would not be frustrated. - -With respect to the alarm that was apprehended, he conjectured there was -none; but there might be just cause if the memorial was not taken into -consideration. He placed himself in the case of a slave, and said, that, -on hearing that Congress had refused to listen to the decent suggestions -of a respectable part of the community, he should infer that the General -Government (from which was expected great good would result to every -class of citizens) had shut their ears against the voice of humanity, -and he should despair of any alleviation of the miseries he and his -posterity had in prospect; if any thing could induce him to rebel, it -must be a stroke like this, impressing on his mind all the horrors of -despair. But if he was told that application was made in his behalf, and -that Congress was willing to hear what could be urged in favor of -discouraging the practice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would -trust in their justice and humanity, and wait the decision patiently. He -presumed that these unfortunate people would reason in the same way, and -he, therefore, conceived the most likely way to prevent danger was to -commit the petition. He lived in a State which had the misfortune of -having in her bosom a great number of slaves; he held many of them -himself, and was as much interested in the business, as any gentleman in -South Carolina or Georgia, yet if he was determined to hold them in -eternal bondage, he should feel no uneasiness or alarm on account of the -present measure, because he should rely upon the virtue of Congress that -they would not exercise any unconstitutional authority. - -Mr. MADISON.--The debate has taken a serious turn, and it will be owing -to this alone if an alarm is created; for, had the memorial been treated -in the usual way, it would have been considered as a matter of course, -and a report might have been made so as to have given general -satisfaction. If there was the slightest tendency by the commitment to -break in upon the constitution, he would object to it; but he did not -see upon what ground such an event was to be apprehended. The petition -prayed, in general terms, for the interference of Congress, so far as -they were constitutionally authorized: but even if its prayer was, in -some degree, unconstitutional, it might be committed, as was the case on -Mr. Churchman's petition, one part of which was supposed to apply for an -unconstitutional interference by the General Government. He admitted, -that Congress is restricted by the constitution from taking measures to -abolish the slave trade; yet there are a variety of ways by which it -could countenance the abolition, and regulations might be made in -relation to the introduction of them into the new States to be formed -out of the Western Territory. He thought the object well worthy of -consideration. - -Mr. GERRY thought the interference of Congress fully compatible with the -constitution, and could not help lamenting the miseries to which the -natives of Africa were exposed by this inhuman commerce. He never -contemplated the subject, without reflecting what his own feelings would -be, in case himself, his children, or friends were placed in the same -deplorable circumstances. He then adverted to the flagrant acts of -cruelty which are committed in carrying on that traffic; and asked, -whether it can be supposed that Congress has no power to prevent such -abuses? He then referred to the constitution, and pointed out the -restrictions laid on the General Government respecting the importation -of slaves. It was not, he presumed, in the contemplation of any -gentleman in this House to violate that part of the constitution; but -that we have a right to regulate this business, is as clear as that we -have any rights whatever; nor has the contrary been shown by any person -who has spoken on the occasion. Congress can, agreeably to the -constitution, lay a duty of ten dollars on imported slaves; they may do -this immediately. He made a calculation of the value of the slaves in -the Southern States, and supposed they may be worth ten millions of -dollars. Congress have a right, if they see proper, to make a proposal -to the Southern States to purchase the whole of them, and their -resources in the Western Territory might furnish them with the means. He -did not intend to suggest a measure of this kind; he only instanced -these particulars to show that Congress certainly has a right to -intermeddle in the business. He thought that no objection had been -offered of any force to prevent the commitment of the memorial. - -Mr. BOUDINOT had carefully examined the petition and found nothing like -what was complained of by gentlemen contained in it; he, therefore, -hoped they would withdraw their opposition and suffer it to be -committed. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, that as the petitioners had -particularly prayed Congress to take measures for the annihilation of -the slave trade; and as that was admitted, on all hands, to be beyond -their power, and as the petitioners would not be gratified by a tax of -ten dollars per head, which was all that was within their power, there -was, of consequence, no occasion for committing it. - -The question on the commitment being about to be put, the yeas and nays -were called for, and were as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Brown, Cadwalader, - Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman, - Goodhue, Griffin, Grout, Hartley, Hathorn, Heister, - Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, Leonard, Livermore, Madison, - Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, Partridge, Rensselaer, - Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Sinnickson, - Smith, (of Maryland,) Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, - Wadsworth, White, and Wynkoop--43. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Burke, Coles, Huger, - Jackson, Matthews, Sylvester, Smith, (of South Carolina,) - Stone, and Tucker--14. - -The memorials were referred accordingly. - - -MONDAY, February 15. - -_Public Credit._ - -The House went again into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the -Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair. - -Mr. MADISON's motion for a discrimination being under consideration, - -Mr. SEDGWICK.--The proposition, Mr. Chairman, contains a question of the -utmost importance. And the committee must be obliged to the gentleman -who brought it forward for his very ingenious discussion of the subject -of the domestic debt. With respect to the question now before the -committee, so much has been said, that I think it will not be necessary -to consume much of their time in the investigation. On the subject of -contracts I have to observe, that whenever a voluntary engagement is -made for a valuable consideration for property advanced or services -rendered, and the terms of the contract are understood, if no fraud or -imposition is practised, the party engaging is bound to the performance, -according to the literal meaning of the words in which it is expressed. -Such contract, whether of a Government or an individual, may be either -transferable or not transferable. The latter species of contract -receives an additional value from its capacity of being transferred, if -the circumstances of the possessor should render a sale of it necessary -or convenient to him. To render the transferable quality of such -evidences of contract in any degree advantageous to the possessor, it is -necessary to consider, in case of sale, the alienee possessed of all the -property of the original holder; and indeed it is highly absurd, and -even contradictory, to say, that such evidences of debt are -transferable, and at the same time to say that there is in them a kind -of property that the holder could not convey by _bona fide_ contract. - -This is the construction which has invariably been given to these -contracts, whether formed by Government or by individuals. To deprive -the citizen of the power of binding himself by his own voluntary -contract, or to prevent a disposition of property in its nature -alienable, would be a violent and unjustifiable invasion of one of those -rights of which man, as a citizen, is the most tenacious, and would -indeed break one of the strongest bonds by which society is holden -together. - -In the transfers which have been made, the contracts were fairly made; -the whole rights have been transferred. It is not pretended any fraud or -imposition has been practised. The risk was calculated by the parties, -and it was observed, that the risk contemplated a revolution in the -Government. - -From the foregoing deduction of particulars, it is presumed to be proved -that a property is vested in the transferees. That if this property is -divested by the Government, the law for that purpose would have a -retrospective operation, and that no _ex post facto_ law could be more -alarming than that by which the right of private property is violently -invaded. - -Having considered the nature of the contract, and of the obligations -which result from it, I beg leave to call the attention of the committee -to those circumstances by which that obligation may be destroyed, -impaired, or suspended. They are stated to be, 1. Performance. 2. -Voluntary discharge. 3. Composition. 4. Inability. - -And gentlemen are called upon to give information of any other causes -which can produce either of those effects. - -With regard, more particularly, to the proposition before the committee, -I have, to observe, that with regard to these contracts, there has -existed a depreciation in consequence of the failure of Government -regularly to pay the interest. That in this depreciated state, the -securities have been alienated; that of course the original holders have -sustained a loss; that if the loss resulted from the fault, and not the -misfortune of Government, the creditors have, undeniably, a demand -against the Government for compensation; that this demand, however well -founded, can never authorize the Government to invade the honestly -acquired property of the present possessors, a property warranted by the -terms of the contract itself, and sanctioned by the act of Congress, of -April, 1783, and the validity of it recognized by the constitution we -have sworn to support. - -With regard to the claims of the original holders, it is, however, -observable, that the domestic creditor, at the time the contract was -formed, well knew the nature of the constitution of the Government -administered by Congress, the other contracting party; that its power of -performance depended on the ability and good-will of the States; that -Congress had always performed its duty, had made the necessary -requisitions; that this was its utmost power; and that the failure had -arisen wholly from the neglect of the States. I therefore submit it to -the committee, whether, if the original holder has a just or equitable -demand, he should not resort to the State of which he is a member? - -I admit, that the case of an original holder is indeed a hard one; that -I have a respect for his misfortunes and for his pretensions; that if -satisfaction is discovered to be just and practicable, I would not -hesitate to go to the utmost ability of the Government for that purpose. -But let me ask, what merit will the Government possess, if it strip one -class of citizens, who have acquired property by the known and -established rules of law, under the specious pretence of doing justice -to another class of citizens? - -It was implicitly agreed, that eighty per cent. depreciation would not -authorize the interference proposed by the motion. I ask, then, for some -point of depreciation to be pointed out, which will authorize such -interference. - -The question for which I contend has received the universal approbation -of mankind; there are no instances of the interference contended for, -and this general sense of mankind affords me some evidence of truth. - -This contract was founded on a valuable consideration. It was the price -of our liberty and independence. The possessor claimed, according to the -very terms of the contract, though it is not pretended that the -engagements of Government have been performed. No composition with the -creditors is proposed; nor is the proposition founded on any pretended -inability of the Government; for to comply with the intention of it, -1,600,000 dollars, annually, more than is proposed by the report of the -Secretary, would be required. - -By reason of the circumstances which have taken place, the honorable -gentleman (Mr. MADISON) supposes, that, if the whole amount of a -security shall be paid to the present possessor, he will have a sum of -money to which the original holder is equitably entitled. If this is -true, then, no interposition is necessary, it being a well-known rule of -law, that an action will always lie to recover money out of the hands of -another, to which the plaintiff, from the principles of equity and good -conscience, is entitled. - -With regard to the effects, which will probably result from this -measure, I have to observe, that they will be destructive to our -national character. That the world is now willing, charitably, to impute -our former miscarriages to events we could not control; but should our -first measures, in regard to public faith, be a violent infraction of -our contracts, it will sanction all our bitterest enemies have said, to -our disadvantage. With regard to its effects on credit, little -dependence will be placed on the plighted faith of a Government which, -under the pretence of doing equity, has exercised a power of dispensing -with its contracts, and has thereby formed for itself a precedent of -future violations, both with respect to its funds and contracts. With -regard to discovering who was the original holder, except so far as -respects the army debt, I am certain there are no documents by which the -necessary facts can be discovered. - -I presume it is a fact, with regard to much the greater part of the -debt, that any fictitious name was inserted. And with regard to the army -debt, the soldiers, generally, who were in the service at the conclusion -of the war, had received ample satisfaction for their services, at the -time of their enlistment, having been paid more, on an average, than two -hundred and fifty dollars per man. - -I have only to add, that the proposed system will lay a foundation for -infinite frauds and perjuries, and that it will, beyond all powers of -calculation, multiply the evils of speculation. - -Mr. LAWRENCE observed, that the proposition of the gentleman from -Virginia (Mr. MADISON) derived force from the talents and knowledge of -that gentleman in public transactions; but that, on examination, it -would be found to contain doctrines very repugnant to the interest and -prosperity of the Union. - -He then stated, that the debts contracted by the United States were for -loans of money, supplies of articles necessary for the public wants, and -for actual services rendered in different employments. That these debts -were ultimately adjusted and reduced to their present transferable form. -That every part of the contract was essential to it. The negotiability -was a material part. That the nature of the contract was frequently -recognized by the late Government. That, in 1783, Congress recommended -certain funds to be established to pay the interest, and put the -principal in a course of discharge. That this recommendation was -unequivocal, as to the nature of it, and made no discrimination between -the possessor and original holder. That the subsequent conduct of that -body was conformable to this recommendation. That they had annually -called on the States to furnish money to pay the interest, without -discriminating between the original holder and present possessor. That -they had paid interest on the securities, without making any -discrimination. That provision had been made for holders of loan-office -certificates that were subject to liquidation, to have them cancelled, -and others issued for the specie value. That the holders of certificates -were enabled to have them registered, to guard against accidents; and -that no distinction was made between the original holder and the -alienee. That the transferable nature of the claim was for the benefit -of the creditor, because it gave it an active value. That he consented -to take it, and consulted his own advantage. That the conduct of the -late Congress, since the war, had been uniform in the support of this -contract, and they had done no act to impair its obligation, according -to the terms of it. That this contract was valid against the Government; -for, notwithstanding the truth of the gentleman's observations, that the -nation is the same, though the bodies that administered the Government -were different, there was yet far greater security; and to remove all -doubt, a clause that made all debts and engagements valid against the -United States, under the late General Government, valid against the -present, was inserted in the constitution. - -He further observed, that this contract having descended upon the -Government, there was no right in the Legislature to impair the force of -it. That the particular Governments are restrained from passing laws -impairing the obligations of contracts. That this interference would be -a violation of the contract, between the individuals, when the -certificate was transferred; and it would not be presumed, the States -being prohibited, that the General Government had the power to do it. - -He then adverted to the principles of the gentleman, to wrest the -obligation of the public to the original holder; and observed, that the -same principles were in favor of the present possessor. That public -justice required a performance of contracts, when there was no fraud on -the part of the holder. That the possessor had been guilty of no fraud, -no deception. That the contract between him and the original holder was -fair, and that a hazard and risk attended the purchase adequate to the -advantage. That nothing short of a revolution in Government could have -produced payment. That if there was an imposition, the public occasioned -it; and between the original holder and the public, there might be a -claim for retribution. That public faith was as sacredly pledged to the -bearer, or present possessor, as to the original creditor. That public -credit results from fair and upright conduct; that the Government, to -support it, must perform its contract. That this was a contract -recognized by them, and as such should be discharged. That the condition -we have been in made it proper for us to be cautious on this subject; -and even at present, people doubted our disposition to establish our -credit. That this would give a fatal blow to it, and when we should -recover, if ever, was doubtful. That the public opinion was difficult -to be ascertained; gentlemen had different modes to determine it. He -supposed it was better ascertained by the acts of public bodies than by -squibs in the newspapers, or by pamphlets written by individuals. That -the uniform conduct of men, deputed by the particular States to -represent them, in the late General Government, was the best standard; -and their opinion, from the year 1783, was in favor of the present -possessor. That the conduct of the particular States was another -circumstance; that he did not know of any discrimination made by them, -though it had been attempted. That the general opinion of men of -property was in favor of it; and that these sources of public opinion -were more certain than those he had before mentioned. - -He further observed, that although he believed gentlemen supposed no -advantage would be derived to the United States from this -discrimination, yet much would arise. That part of the army was composed -of foreigners, many had left the country, others were dead; all their -part would be unclaimed. That certificates were issued to public -officers to a great amount, and were paid by them to persons from whom -they purchased. The difficulty of making proof of the original creditor -would be great; and, from this circumstance, great sums would be gained -to the public. That there were persons enough who would have sagacity to -discern this; and they would doubt the purity of the public motive, -should the gentleman's plan be adopted. - -He then adverted to the circumstance of the new creditor receiving -paper. That this paper might be subject to another liquidation on the -same principle as the present. That it would introduce doubt and -distrust of public engagements; and there would be no greater security, -although a fund was pledged, than there is at present, for whenever the -public pleased, they might destroy the obligation. Arguments were -improperly addressed to their feelings; but that however hard it may be -for the original creditor, who had parted with his certificates, to -contribute to pay the debt, yet it would be equally hard on him who had -been injured by Continental money, who had been plundered by the enemy, -who had had his property burned by them in the course of the war; and -that instances of these kinds were numerous. - -He then adverted to the doctrine of the Court of Equity; and urged that -this court must be governed by principle. That were the committee this -high court, and the United States the original creditor, and the present -possessor before them; and if there appeared no fraud on the part of the -possessor, the original creditor would have no just claim on him. That -between the United States and original creditors, the United States were -in fault, and the claim, if good, would be against them. - -Mr. SMITH (of S. C.) remarked, that it was necessary and proper the -House should give the subject the most ample discussion. The question -had long agitated the public mind, and the people should know that it -had occupied the serious attention of their Representatives, and be made -acquainted with the principles of their decision. For his part, having -bestowed on it the most attentive consideration, he could assert, that -the more he contemplated it, the more he was impressed with a -conviction, that the proposition was unjust, impolitic, and -impracticable. It consisted of two parts: The one was to take away the -property of one person; the other was to give that property to another; -and this by a voluntary interposition of the House, by a mere act of -power, without the assent of the former, or without even the application -of the latter. For it was remarkable, that the original holders, who had -alienated their certificates, had not come forward with this demand; and -it is presumable, that, had they applied for redress, they would reject -any indemnification which was the result of such manifest injustice. To -prove that this was taking away the property of a citizen by force, he -observed, that the purchaser had, by a fair purchase, acquired a right -to the full amount of the sum expressed in the certificate, which it was -not within the power of the House to divest him of. No tribunal on earth -could lawfully deprive a man of his property fairly obtained. The -purchaser bought under the act of Congress, making the securities -transferable; and having given the market price, without fraud or -imposition, he was, by virtue of such purchase, vested with the complete -and absolute ownership of the certificate, as fully as the original -holder; and had as much right to demand full payment as the original -holder would have had, had the security been still in his hands. Even -should the House refuse, by an act of power, to pay him more than half -his demand, the other half would still remain against the public; it -could not be extinguished. The debt would continue to haunt them; the -creditors would loudly clamor for justice, and sooner or later the -balance would be paid. Then would they incur all the odium of a -violation of private rights, without deriving to the public any -advantage whatever. He considered the measure as doing a certain evil, -that a possible good might result from it. This was not, in his opinion, -the proper mode of doing good. Justice cannot be founded on injustice; -and to take money out of the pocket of one man, to put it into that of -another, is a precedent which may justify future interferences. This -step would lead the House to others: for, if the principle be a just -one, then the Government should look into all the transactions and -speculations of individuals, in order to correct them, and make -retribution to every individual according to his losses. He was -persuaded, that the true policy of a Legislative body was, to pursue the -broad road of justice, clearly marked out before them; for it was an -undeniable truth, that whenever they deviated into by-roads and -trackless paths, without any other guide than their own imagination, -they would get bewildered in a labyrinth of difficulties, and rejoice to -trace back their steps, and regain the plain road. Now, the plain line -of conduct is, to do strict justice, such as is enforced in judicial -tribunals, between man and man, in a similar case. The debtor is bound -to pay the debt to the holder of the security; the contract, between the -giver of the bond and the person to whom it was given, is done away the -moment the latter assigns it to another person. If A gives a bond to B, -who parts with it to C, there is no longer any obligation on the part of -A to pay B, but he must pay it to C. A has nothing to do with the -private negotiations between B and C, nor to inquire what consideration -was given for the security. All that he has to inquire is, whether he -really signed it and had value received for it, and the amount of it. He -cannot say to the holder, you gave but fifty dollars for this security -of one hundred dollars, and I will pay you only fifty; for the law will -compel him to pay the hundred. This is a point of justice between man -and man. Is there another point of law and justice for the Government? -By what rule is the Government to square its conduct, if not by those -sacred rules which form the basis of civil society, and are the -safeguard of private property? - -The gentleman from Virginia has said, that giving the present holders, -by alienation, the highest market price, would be doing them ample -justice; but did the public mean to refund them the money they had -actually advanced? No; they were to receive this ample justice by a bit -of paper, nominally for ten shillings; but which this very measure would -instantly depreciate to eight, or six shillings. They would have this -consolation, that, according to the gentleman's reasoning, they would -still have a claim against the Government for the balance. For, if the -original holder, by selling his certificate for four shillings, has now -a just claim against the Government for the balance of sixteen -shillings, which it is asserted he has, of course the alienee, to whom -the public should now acknowledge a debt of ten shillings, which he -would sell for only six, would hereafter have a just demand against the -public for four shillings. The reasoning might be carried further, for -it would follow, that whenever the public shall pay in paper which shall -depreciate, the seller will have a demand against the Government for the -difference. - -The constitution itself, he said, was opposed to the measure, for it was -an _ex post facto_ law, which was prohibited in express terms. The -transfer of public securities was lawful at the time these alienations -were made; an attempt, therefore, to punish the transferees is an -attempt to make an _ex post facto_ law, by making that now unlawful -which was lawful at the time it was done. It alters the nature of the -transaction, and annexes the idea of guilt to that which at the moment -of commission, was not only perfectly innocent, but was explicitly -authorized and encouraged by a public act of Congress. By that act those -who had money were invited to purchase of those who held securities, and -now we are called upon to punish the purchasers who bought under that -invitation. The constitution restrains the States from passing any laws -impairing the force of contracts; _a fortiori_ is the Legislature of the -Union restrained. What an example to hold up to the Judiciary of the -United States! How could they annul a State law, when the State would be -able to plead a precedent on the part of Congress? The right of property -is a sacred right; no tribunal on earth can deprive a citizen of his -property, unless for a fair equivalent, for the public welfare. The -purchaser is vested, by the sale, with an absolute right, to the full -amount of the security, and it is beyond their authority to divest him -of it. They might, indeed, by an act of power, declare that he should be -paid only half; but his right to the other moiety would not be -extinguished. It had been said, that the original holder still had a -claim against the public, because he had received only two shillings and -sixpence for services worth twenty shillings. On the same principle, and -with more justice, the present holder would still have a claim for ten -shillings, because he has the public bond for twenty shillings. No -ingenuity can overcome these stubborn principles of law and justice; -they are immutable, and must ultimately prevail. The House had been told -that if the Government had defrauded the original holders out of their -dues, it was fit the public should rectify the fraud. The former -Government was not deficient in inclination to do them ample justice; -but, from the imbecility of the Confederation, had not the means. In -those days of democratic enthusiasm, the people were afraid of an -energetic Government: having so recently experienced the severity of the -former one, the citizens of these States were cautious in trusting any -Government with power; and it is not improbable that some of the -original holders, who suffered their embarrassments, from the want of a -Government competent to the payment of its debts, would themselves have -opposed vesting Congress with powers adequate to this object. Even the -present constitution, which is a mild one, met with considerable -opposition: had it been rejected, the public securities would have never -been paid. - -Mr. AMES agreed with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) in regard -to the validity of the debt. There was propriety in saying the nation is -the same, though the Government be changed. The debt is the price of our -liberties, and cannot be diminished a farthing, the gentleman from -Virginia says; and why? Because the Government, as one of the -contracting parties, cannot annul, or vary the bargain without the -consent of the other. If the measure proposed by that gentleman -corresponds with that sound principle, he should have the pleasure of -agreeing with him on the ultimate decision; but if the measure should -be found, on a fair discussion, to be subversive of that principle, it -would not merit the countenance of the committee. - -A claim upon our justice is made, on behalf of the original holders of -securities, who have transferred them. Does the plighted faith of the -country stand charged to pay the difference between the price their -securities sold for in the market and their nominal sum? In order to -make the affirmative appear, the worthy gentleman has said, that the -paper is the only evidence of a prior contract; and while the paper was -sold, the residuary right to the debt still remained in the seller. -Supposing this novel doctrine to be true, which cannot be conceded, it -will not warrant any conclusion in prejudice of any purchaser of the -Loan-office debt; for the paper was given when the loan was made; as no -prior debt existed, the paper is the very debt. The gentleman ought, -therefore, to confine his motion to the army debt, as his principle -seems inapplicable to any other. And even on liquidating the army debt, -the certificate extinguished the prior debt; otherwise the public would -be twice charged. As, when one man owes another an account, and gives -his bond for the balance, the account is no longer of force. By the -terms of the certificate, the person transferring has lost his claim -against the public. He has freely transferred; for if violence or fraud -were practised, the law will afford him redress. In society, as well as -in a state of nature, property is changed by the consent of the last -occupant. He may dispose of it by gift or at half price, and give a -complete title. Nor will the pretence that this transfer was free only -in appearance, avail; for the motives which disposed the owner to sell -cannot affect the right of the purchaser. Every such creditor risked -something; either that the Government would not pay him at all, or not -in due season. The risk, computed in free and open market, will be -nearly right. It is a kind of insurance against these risks, and the -insurers and insured will calculate the rate of insurance better than -Government can do it. If there is a new risk of Government interposing, -it seems that the purchaser, who may be called the insurer, did not rate -his risk high enough. It seems pretty clear, therefore, that there is no -claim on the stipulated justice of the country. - -The committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. - - -TUESDAY, February 16. - -_Public Credit._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair. - -Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration. - -Mr. JACKSON observed, that although as young a politician as any on the -floor, and convinced that the weight of experience was against him, on -so important a national subject, he could not be silent; particularly as -he had the honor of seconding the gentleman's motion (Mr. MADISON) now -before the House, that it would be therefore expected that he should -bring forward his reasons, and the principle which actuated him to it. -He confessed, that had he not before leaned to the side of a -discrimination, the arguments of that able gentleman would have induced -him to support the plan he had brought forward. He was induced on -another motive to rise, to show that the numerous arguments of the -gentlemen in opposition, yesterday, had not convinced him of the -impracticability or injustice of the composition. - -The House were told much of the moral obligations we were under of -paying our debts, and the impolicy and injustice of interfering with -private contracts. The obligation, he believed, was nowhere denied; the -debt was of the highest nature; it was the price of our independence: -the only difficulty is, how that debt shall be discharged. He would here -observe, that the justice of the plan before the House, had not been so -fully objected to, as the impracticability, although it had been -asserted to be unjust, by some of the gentlemen who had spoken. - -He would consider the justice of the proposition. The House had been -told the nature of those contracts, and the valuable considerations of -them. The contract, as it struck him, fell under the legal terms of _do, -ut des_; I give that thou mayest give--or, I give that I may receive. In -all contracts there are three requisites: 1st. The agreement. 2d. The -consideration. 3d. The thing to be done or omitted. This consideration -is to be an equivalent, or full recompense for the thing to be -performed. Let us examine what is the thing to be done, and what the -consideration is. The creditor, who was to perform the third article of -the contract, held twenty shillings, which was to be given for a -valuable consideration. What was this consideration? Two shillings and -sixpence. He argued, that if this twenty shillings was worth no more -than two shillings and sixpence, the contract was fair and substantial; -but, if gentlemen carried the idea further, and declared this twenty -shillings was money of equal value with the two shillings and sixpence -given, he contended that the contract was destroyed. Equity would -relieve, would declare it an unrighteous bargain, that there was not an -adequate compensation, and would set aside the contract. - -This public opinion is in favor of the original creditor; it is -impossible to be otherwise. The people of America are a grateful people, -and they cannot, with indifference, view the earnings of those who -established their independence, converted into the coffers of the -wealthy and ambitious. The speculator, he contended, was already more -than satisfied, if it was only on the principle of interest which had -accrued for six, seven, and eight years past, and which they had -speculated on since. - -Mr. BENSON.--The gentlemen in favor of this motion come forward as the -advocates of the late army. I wish, therefore, to be ascertained of one -fact, do the army wish a measure of this kind to take place? I apprehend -they do not; and I am led to this opinion from a knowledge of the habits -of military men; they prefer their honor to every pecuniary -consideration, and they generally are actuated by that principle alone. -I will state a case. Suppose I purchased an officer's certificate for -one hundred dollars, and I was to fund it; the Treasurer would say, you -are to receive but fifty dollars, the other fifty are reserved for the -original holder. Now, if I was to go and tell the officer, that, -notwithstanding my purchase of all his right, title, and claim to the -one hundred dollars, the Government would give me but fifty, retaining -the other fifty for him, he would answer, I will never receive a -farthing of it, because it is your money, fairly and honorably purchased -of me. Now, in this case, what would you do? Should these fifty dollars -fall to the Government, or to me? I reason in this manner, because I -suppose this would be a general case. The Society of Cincinnati, of the -State of New York, have, by a resolution, which they have published in -the papers, disavowed the principle; and, in Rhode Island, a member of -the Society was expelled for taking advantage of the tender-law of that -State, and paying off a _bona fide_ debt with depreciated paper. I -apprehend the principle of action still remains the same throughout the -whole of the army. When the soldier conveyed his certificate, there was -a contract between the parties, that whatever sum the Government could -pay, the whole of it should go to the assignee. Now, by an act of -violence, you take the half of it away, and enable the assignor to -discharge the contract by paying fifty dollars, when he had engaged that -the purchaser should receive one hundred. This is, in effect, the same -as the payment of depreciated paper under a tender-law, and would be -equally rejected by those whom it is intended to favor. - -I would state the case, as if it had happened between the gentleman and -myself, could he hesitate to say the whole sum was fairly mine, and -surrender it up, notwithstanding the legal interference of the -Government? This is a question I would not suffer myself to reason upon; -I would not trust my mind with it, lest it should preponderate in favor -of self-interest, though against the common principles of truth and -justice. I cannot think the army would accept the interposition; we -ought, therefore, to be cautious how we trifle with the honor of other -people. - -I do not pretend to say, that the persons intended to be relieved by the -proposed scheme have not a claim against the United States; but I deny -that it is a claim upon our equity or justice; it may be a claim upon -our humanity; and, whether we will satisfy this claim, depends on -circumstances which have no connection with the present question. - -Mr. JACKSON.--God forbid, Mr. Chairman, that I should trifle with the -honor of men I value, and esteem so highly; it would be the last thing I -could think of. But, sir, as a Legislator, I cannot consent that the -pittance which was the reward of distinguished services, shall be torn -from them by the arts of insidious speculators; but there are others, -who have a claim in equity upon our justice, who ought not to be -sacrificed to the soldier's honor. - -Mr. WHITE said he agreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. -SEDGWICK) in the principle, that if a contract is made for a valuable -consideration, and with the understanding of both parties, the -Legislature ought not to interfere in it; and should it appear that the -transaction between the original holders of certificates and the -purchasers was a fair one, the dispute, in his mind, was at an end. But -no gentleman had attempted to show that this was the case, though all -the arguments against a discrimination were founded on that supposition. -Perhaps it might be said, that every argument ought to be considered as -fair; unless the contrary be proved. But where one man has obtained the -property of another to the amount of £100 for £10, or £12 10s. the -transaction must be explained to him, before he would believe it to be -honest. What is the present case? The original holders, who have parted -with the evidences of their debts, were principally common soldiers, -militiamen, and farmers in indigent circumstances. Who were the -purchasers? The Secretary of the Treasury tells us, that the most -enlightened among our citizens are the creditors of the United States; -common soldiers cannot be comprehended in this description. What must -have passed, he asked, between the soldier, the militiaman, or farmer, -and the purchaser? What reason could the purchaser assign for offering -£10 for a paper which specified an obligation to pay £100? It must be -something like this--the States will never pay you; if they do, it will -be at a very remote period, so long as to be useless to you; but to -relieve your present necessities, I will take the risk on myself, and -give you £10. Now, could any enlightened man, he asked, in 1783, or at -any subsequent period, in which time the transfers took place, believe -that the independence of America was in danger, or that the debts could -not be provided for? - -He knew so many instances of transactions like that which he had stated, -that he doubted not the greater part of the certificates had been -obtained by similar means. Indeed he could not conceive any other by -which they could be obtained. - -He said we were, perhaps, without a precedent in any other nation which -would be strictly applicable; but he desired gentlemen to determine for -themselves, whether, under such circumstances, the man who had rendered -services to his country should be deprived of his reward, or whether the -purchaser ought to receive it. He said it was very different in the -common transactions of life. If a man purchased a tract of land for -£1,000, paid the money, and took a bond for the conveyance, a third -person, by informing the purchaser that the seller could not make a -title, or by other false suggestions should obtain a transfer of the -bond in consideration of £100, and get a conveyance and possession of -the land, yet, on repaying the £100, the conveyance would be set aside, -and he would be restored to his land. - -He gave some other instances of a similar nature, and said, he believed, -if a bond, whether due, or to become due, was assigned under such -circumstances, that the obligee would be justifiable in contesting it in -a court of law, and that the injured person would, on application, -obtain redress. He said, that in cases of extreme hardship, Courts of -Equity would give relief without express proof of fraud; that this was -the law of Great Britain, and was agreeable to the principles of the -civil law; that the Roman jurists, he believed, had fixed the point of -extreme hardship to one half of the value of the property transferred; -in England the court was to judge. - -He said he did not think the present holders were strictly entitled to -any thing more than the original purchasers; that here the maxim, quoted -on the other side of the question, that the assignee stands in the shoes -of the assignor, properly applied. You cannot place another on more -advantageous ground than that on which you stand yourself. The plea of -an innocent purchaser could not take place; the nature of the -transaction must appear evident to every man concerned in the transfer. - -He said the reverse of this did not hold. An assignee was not always in -as advantageous a situation as the assignor; and instanced the case of -an executor who should obtain the assignment of his testator's bond at -an undervalue; and who, he said, could not retain in his hands the -amount of the sum specified in the bond, which the creditor might have -recovered, but only the sum which he actually paid for the bond. - -He said, that, though in his opinion the present holders of certificates -were strictly entitled to no more than what had been paid to the -original holders, yet, as an investigation of that circumstance would be -involved in inextricable difficulties, and since we were (as had been -very properly observed and well expressed by a gentleman from South -Carolina) settling the business of a family, he was willing to acquiesce -in the motion of his colleague. He said, that arbitrators often gave the -injured party less than his due, for peace sake; and he was willing to -act on the same principle. He doubted not but courts of justice would -give relief in particular cases; but in a matter of that magnitude, he -thought the interference of the Legislature very proper. The South Sea -business, he thought, in that respect, a good precedent. Two gentlemen -had mentioned the business; he would not say they had misstated the -transaction, but he thought their accounts imperfect. They said they had -the documents under their hands; he wished they had been read; he had -them not, but would state from memory what he thought applicable to the -case in question. The directors of the South Sea Company, by various -arts, induced the people to give as high as £1,000 for £100 stock; in -many instances the money was paid, in others it was contracted to be -paid. A gentleman has said, that Parliament interfered, not to violate, -but to perfect the contract: but what did Parliament do? They -confiscated the estates of the directors, and applied the amount to the -relief of those who had actually paid their money, and suspended suits -against those who had not paid; and authorized the debtors to discharge -their debts by the payment of ten per cent. on the real value of the -stock subscribed for. But if he was wrong in supposing the present -holders ought to stand in the place of the first purchasers, they could -be considered only as having purchased, in market, a paper of indefinite -value; if, then, they get the highest market price, they are not -injured. - -He would now endeavor to obviate some of the objections to the measure, -on account of its impracticability; and in general terms observed, that -much greater pains had been taken to show the impracticability than the -injustice of it. He said, if it was just, we ought to adopt it; and he -did not doubt but the wisdom of the Legislature would be able to carry -it into effect. Purchasers, he said, had been represented as the -supporters of public credit; but he could not consider them in that -light. The offering a tenth or an eighth part of the value of the bond -of an individual would tend rather to blast his credit than to support -it; it would have the same effect with respect to the public. - -He said he had lived long enough to be convinced that wise and great -men, having the same object in view, often differ in opinion with -respect to the means of accomplishing it; therefore, every proposition -ought to be treated with candor and respect. He made that observation in -consequence of what passed yesterday. A gentleman from Massachusetts had -introduced his speech in a manner somewhat new--with an apology for an -impropriety which he _intended to commit_. He pursued the arguments of -those who went before him, in opposition to the amendment; but his -speech consisted principally in an effusion of opprobrious epithets, -some of which he repeated, and said, to detail the whole would perhaps -fill half a column of a newspaper. He said he felt, on the occasion, not -for himself, for he had not expressed his sentiments on the subject -under debate, but for the honor of the House, in which, he thought, no -such language ought to be used. - -It had been said we came forward as volunteers; that the original -holders did not put in their claim. That might be easily accounted for; -they were generally obscure and indigent; had too much modesty, or -perhaps not the capacity, to come forward. That he believed the crowd in -the gallery did not consist of original holders. - -Mr. HARTLEY.--I do not wish to trespass upon the time of the committee, -but I cannot consent to give a silent vote on this occasion. I mean, -however, to confine myself to a few observations, as many of my ideas -have been communicated by other gentlemen. The honorable gentleman from -South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) has anticipated much of what I had to urge; I -shall therefore reduce my view of the subject to two points; first, as -to the justice or legality of the measure, in obliging a creditor, or -assignee, to take less than a certificate expresses, and pay the -difference to another: second, as to the practicability or policy of the -motion and its consequences. - -As to making further satisfaction to the officers and soldiers of the -late army, who have sold their certificates for an inconsiderable sum, -and who have in consequence reaped a less reward than the Government -contracted for, and intended them, I conceive it has nothing to do with -the present question. However, if there is a disposition in Congress to -make a further compensation to those brave and meritorious men, I would -be among the first to support the measure; but I think this a subject -too momentous to be involved collaterally in the question now under -consideration. - -With respect to the first point that offers itself, I have to remark, -that a man who enters into a contract should know the consideration, and -understand the principles upon which it is made, and these should be -expressed on the face of the evidence of the contract. Now, if this -contract be of a negotiable nature, the person to whom the same is -offered, looks on its face, from which it discovers the _agrementum_, -and is naturally led to consider the circumstances of the debtor, his -ability and integrity. Suppose even the evidence of the contract to be -obtained by fraud, unless it be against the express provision of a -statute, and is transferred to a third person for a valuable -consideration, without notice of fraud, it, must be paid. A fraud in any -link of the chain is corrected by a _bona fide_ transfer for a valuable -consideration, without a knowledge of that circumstance by the -purchaser. - -Now, let us apply these principles to the present case. Here is an -instrument of writing, specifying a debt to be due from the United -States to the original holder, or bearer; this being brought into -market, is offered to a third person, he, before his purchase, sees that -the contract was executed in consequence of a consideration, and not -against any positive statute; he then inquires the ability of the -Union, and its disposition to comply with the contract; and, from a -consideration of these circumstances, he concludes, with respect to his -own interest and safety in the purchase, and pays what is conceived to -be the value. What is there to discharge the Government from the -payment? Is it pretended that the services and supplies were an -inadequate compensation? If it even was so supposed, it would not -authorize us to refuse a compliance with our engagements; any -interference would set afloat the great principle upon which the public -tranquillity and happiness depend. This leads me to consider the subject -in my second point of view, with respect to its policy and -practicability, and the consequences that would result from the attempt. - -There are but few original holders who have transferred, that can be -found; of consequence, you would throw the major part of the debt into -an intricate labyrinth. The present possessor would be shifting back the -certificate to the original holder, as far as a latitude is given. Many -persons who were bare trustees, would be reaping advantages, and drawing -money from the Public Treasury, to which they are not entitled; oaths -would be multiplied on oaths; perjuries on perjuries; fraud upon fraud; -and every species of speculation would ensue; deception would be a -strong trait in the character of the times, and the whole of the United -States would be in motion, each endeavoring to prey upon the other. The -consequences of a second inundation of this nature are to be dreaded, -and ought to be carefully avoided. - -Mr. MOORE observed, that it was agreed on all hands, and proposed in the -report of the Secretary, that some discrimination ought to take place. -It was, therefore, incumbent on the House to inquire how this might be -effected with the greatest degree of equity. He supposed the result -would be, that we are at liberty to pay the most meritorious first. Who -constituted this class of citizens? He trusted the late army had an -incontrovertible title to it. He could never believe that the men who -stripped the soldiers of their hard earnings, by allowing them a tenth -of their claim, would have the temerity to pretend that they had -acquired the title of merit with their money, and that the soldier -relinquished, with his certificate, the honor of his corps. - -Had the present question been agitated in the hour of distress, when an -army was essential to our defence, the arguments of justice and equity -would have had their weight. Perhaps it is the soldier's misfortune, -that the question arises at a time when the object for which he was -employed is secured. But notwithstanding all that has been said, I am -fully convinced that his claim is insuperable in equity. The soldier did -not engage to fight your battles to be compensated with a certificate, -acknowledging you were indebted to him; it was specie you promised, and -specie he had a right to expect, or something equal to it in reality. -The public faith was actually pledged to him for a compensation for his -services; but will any one say the public faith was inviolably kept with -him, when a certificate, worth but two shillings in the pound was forced -upon him as specie? The poor soldier, thus situated, was followed by -gangs of speculators, who endeavored to impose on his judgment by the -relation of artful and insidious opinions of the public capacity and -integrity in the discharge of these acknowledgments. The soldier, -incapable of detecting the specious falsehood, swallows the bait, and -becomes the easy prey of designing men. The people felt and resented the -injuries thus perpetrated on those they esteemed; and I am much mistaken -if the citizens of America do not still retain favorable impressions of -the soldiers' services. - -A great deal has been said, with respect to public opinion on this -question. It is impossible, perhaps, to ascertain the public mind with -precision; but there is but one way in our power, that is, to suffer the -subject to be suspended for the present session, and on our return, or -the election of our successors, the public sentiment in this respect -will be evinced; but if we are to determine the public mind from our own -observation, I should not hesitate to say that nine out of ten would be -in favor of a discrimination. The people would, on this principle, I -conceive, submit cheerfully to the payment of those taxes which are -requisite to discharge the public engagements; but if they are to flow -into the large cities, or into the hands of foreigners, who have -speculated upon the misfortunes of the most meritorious class of our -citizens, they will bear the burthen with murmurs and complaints. - -Can any principle of justice demand the payment of the present possessor -of a certificate, that does not apply more forcibly as it respects -original holders? Will gentlemen, then, comply with the one, and neglect -the other? Or rather, as my colleague has proposed, if they are -incapable to pay both, will they not prefer a composition? - -Mr. WADSWORTH.--It appears to me that we have mistaken this business -from the beginning, for we are proceeding as if it was taken for granted -that all those who had alienated their certificates, have been compelled -to it by necessity; there is nothing further from the truth. So far as -it respects the army debt it may be just; and at this moment, were a -soldiery to be paid in certificates, they would part with them at as -great a discount as ever. There is a disposition in soldiers generally -to despise pecuniary considerations; if they want money, they will -dispose of their property at an inconsiderate value to obtain it. But -this remark does not extend to the industrious part of the public -creditors, because they have carefully retained the evidences of their -debt, and now will receive its value. But even of the army, it is not -true that they will suffer the loss of the discount at which their -certificates have been sold. Having an opportunity of being well -acquainted with the circumstances of the army, I know that many of the -officers lived upon their friends, who supported them from time to time, -with such sums as they had occasion for, and when they retired from the -army, they repaid their friends with the certificates which they had -received. The best way for gentlemen to ascertain the amount of the -public debt which has been transferred from necessity, is to mix in the -world, and try, from the circle of their acquaintance, to learn what the -actual transfers have been. I have done this, and am conscious within -myself, that seven-eighths of all the alienated debt has not been -disposed of by the original holder from necessity. - -When the requisitions of Congress were rejected by the State Assemblies, -some of the most wealthy persons of the community, and those most -violently opposed to Continental measures, seemed to concur in the -opinion, that the States would never raise a revenue for the purpose of -paying the domestic debt. The people finding this a prevailing opinion, -were impressed with a dread of its consequences, and sold this species -of negotiable property at a rate dictated by their apprehensions. I -should conceive it as a great evil, if the Government were now to -restore to such persons what they lost for want of confidence. I think -this circumstance will operate considerably against the gentleman's -principle of equity; now, as to the practicability of the measure, those -gentlemen who are acquainted with the history of the manner in which the -public debt was contracted, will readily agree with me, that it is an -insuperable objection. In the years 1776 and 1777, very few advances -were made to those who procured supplies to the public; they purchased -what they got generally upon credit, and they were obliged, before their -accounts could be settled, and they could get their money from the -Public Treasury, to get receipts for all the articles they had -furnished, and then they received orders upon the loan-officers, who, -not having money, paid them in certificates, which these people, in -return, paid over to those who furnished them with supplies. So that the -agent appears a creditor to a very considerable amount, when his -personal claim is very trifling, and those who risked their property, -without pay of any kind, and who are undoubtedly deserving of some -credit, appeared to be no other than speculators in public securities. I -cannot see, in this case, any possible mode of discrimination. There are -a variety of other official transactions which would demonstrate the -impracticability, if it was necessary to oppose the proposition on that -ground. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 17. - -_Public Credit._ - -The House again went into a committee on the report of the Secretary of -the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair. - -Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration. - -Mr. PAGE.--I do not wish to trouble the committee with a formal argument -in favor of the motion offered by my colleague; but I wish to inquire of -the gentlemen in opposition, whether they conceive the principles upon -which it is grounded to be unjust? I observed, that their replies have -generally gone against the practicability of the measure; but that does -not prove to me that it is inequitable. If there is justice in the case, -we must not consider the difficulty of the attempt. I trust, if it shall -be found to stand on the foundation of immutable justice, that its -practicability will be demonstrated. However, I shall not enter on that -ground, but leave it to my colleague, who has so ably supported it on -the other. - -I would, however, beg gentlemen to answer these questions, and show to -my mind the injustice of the United States complying with their -engagements made to the first holders of certificates, as far as the -case, and their abilities, will permit. Or where is the justice of doing -more for the assignee than he, or his assignor, expected could or would -be done? Where is the breach of faith in Government, if it pays its -whole debt, with a justice, blended with mercy, resembling that of -Heaven itself, making impartial retribution among the children of men, -on the great day of accounts? Where is the propriety of branding a -measure of this nature with epithets of infamy? or using such harsh -expressions as have issued like a torrent from a gentleman on the other -side of the House? So far am I from viewing the propositions through -such a discolored medium, that I am induced to believe, if Congress -adopt it, they may submit its rectitude, and stand the decision, of not -only a superior order of beings, but of the Great Judge of the Universe, -who is immutable truth itself. - -What will the assignee lose by the measure? He will lose nothing, but -the sanguine expectation lately raised in his mind. - -Where is the interference in contracts, when the proposition is to -comply sacredly, as far as the case will admit, with the contract -between the State and its creditors? Is not the assignment of the -certificates confirmed by the nation? Does it not give to the assignee -the very thing stipulated between the assignor and assignee, that is, -whatever sum the Government shall be pleased to pay for the certificate? -And is not the sum now proposed, more than either the first or last -assignee ever contemplated, till within a few days past, would ever be -paid him? - -The time is now arrived when justice ought to be done; it is looked for, -with anxious expectation, by all classes of our fellow citizens; it will -not avail us to say, it is impracticable, until experience has -demonstrated it to be so. But the measure we contend for is termed an -_ex post facto_ law, and as such, is declared to be unconstitutional. -Gentlemen torture every thing, in order to produce evidence against an -act of justice. How can it be such an _ex post facto_ law as is -prescribed by the constitution, when that expression is conjunctive with -a bill of attainder? It relates to that only, and can have no reference -to the subject of the proposition before us. The same idea, which -prevents us from an interference on the present occasion, will prevent -us, as was observed by the gentleman from Georgia, from making a statute -of limitation, or from correcting any frauds, which have been -perpetrated on the unsuspicious soldiery. We must not contemplate the -restoration of the starving soldier, with his humble wife and numerous -and naked offspring, to a more eligible situation; we must not restore -confidence to the man of honor who is buried in abject poverty, because -it is addressing a language to the heart, which the haughtiness of the -head disdains to hear; but, in doubtful cases of justice, the heart is -the best director on this subject; happy will it be for us, if, as I -think, they both concur to give their approbation to the present -measure. - - -THURSDAY, February 18. - -_Public Credit._ - -The House again went into a committee on the Secretary of the Treasury's -report, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair. - -Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration. - -Mr. STONE.--I shall not attempt to show the importance of the subject -before us, as it relates to public credit; or as it will affect our -character as a nation, at home and abroad. These have been explained; -but it is proper for us to consider how far the amendment may operate to -establish a precedent of Continental and State Legislation, the -influence it may have on society, and the rules of civil conduct between -man and man. Every community must experience that the conduct of the -Government will influence the opinions of the individuals; and the -spirit of the individual will transfuse itself into the Government. This -action and reaction operates more powerfully in a Republican Government, -founded on representation, than on any other. - -Our situation is made more important, on the present occasion, by a -disagreement on principles which ought to be fixed and plain; to me it -seems that we differ on the principle of public justice. This may be -unfortunate--let us endeavor to be reconciled. If the true distinction -between natural and civil justice be accurately drawn, we may annihilate -the point in contest. Agreeably to the principle of natural justice, no -contract is perfect unless there be an equivalent; and that which we -call a valuable consideration, on which to ground a contract, is founded -on the idea of an equivalent, and presupposes it. And, I believe the -idea of such a consideration being an equivalent, is the foundation of -the validity of a contract, even in the English law; and is always -carried into effect, wherever the execution is safe and certain; because -I think, whenever it appears in any court of justice, that the -consideration was not an equivalent, that then the contract is not -carried into execution. The execution of the principle of natural -justice then is safe; for instance, £99 19_s._ 11_d._ is not a -consideration for £100, but a small sum may be a consideration for a -valuable property; this does not arise from an infraction of the -principle; but because the property may not have a determinate value in -the society; and it would make judges arbitrary, legal proceedings -extremely expensive, and contracts uncertain, if an extensive discretion -as to the value was admitted. But whenever the consideration is so small -and inadequate, as to appear so plainly and satisfactorily that the -judge cannot be mistaken in determining it not to be an equivalent, -there the contract is not valid. - -Now, if we have received services from the soldier, and have given him -paper, the question will be, whether that was an equivalent, and the -paper a proper payment; or whether it is only an evidence of the debt? I -take it to be a granted point that it was not a payment, but an -obligation to pay whenever the United States should be able. It appears -to me, then, that it was the duty of the person who received the paper, -to wait a reasonable time; and the duty of the nation to make actual -payment as speedily as possible. If the person who had received this -paper had wantonly parted with it for nothing, I agree we should have -been under no more obligation to pay him the expressed sum, than if we -had paid him money, and he had flung it away or wasted it; but if, on -the contrary, there was a delay in the execution of the contract, on the -part of the Government, which compelled him to part with it, a -compensation is equitable. - -The same rule will apply between the original holder, or person who -rendered the service, and present possessor or assignee; for shortness -we will distinguish them by the names of soldier and speculator. The -speculator, when he dealt with the soldier, must, from the nature of the -thing, have induced him to believe that he gave him an equivalent for -his purchase; and it might have been an inducement to the soldier to -sell, to think he had something more than an equivalent; the speculator -thought he had more than an equivalent, throwing necessity on the one -side, and fraud on the other, out of the question. Then the confidence -was equal, perhaps not a penny between them: I can hardly conceive the -exchange took place on any other terms. You never can allow the -confidence of the speculator to be estimated very highly, perhaps at not -more than one for ten. For if it is admitted, that the speculator had -entire confidence, he was guilty of a palpable fraud, and a violation of -the first principle of justice; it amounted to this, that he gave £10 in -money for £100 bond, which he was certain would be paid. I believe, if -the case stood exactly in this form, no man would hesitate in deciding -its illegality. If a man takes £100 for £10, it is illegal; but suppose -there was a risk, and this risk was considered by the speculator as -little less than ten for one, has he not discovered his own mistake when -he sees he gets an interest of sixty per cent. on his capital; and that -capital tenfold? This contract then ought to be void on the principle of -a mistake; and here you place the speculator between Scylla and -Charybdis. If he really thought the certificates only worth one for ten, -you can give him no credit for his confidence; and you will admit that -he ought to be satisfied with a reasonable advance on his purchase. But -if you give him entire credit for his confidence in Government, you must -give him no credit for his honesty. If both parties had known of this -event, the contract would never have taken place. If you pay the whole -sum, the speculator ought to take no more than what he gave a fair -equivalent for. Gentlemen who seem afraid of giving to the soldier a -part of his original claim, lest they affront his nobleness of soul, -make no scruple to offer the speculator ten times the sum he is entitled -to, on the principle of natural justice, without any apprehension that -his honor will receive a wound. If the claim of the soldier was -extinguished by receiving two shillings in the pound of the speculator, -upon what principle is it contended that the latter should receive more -than distributive justice? Arguments, proving that the justice due to -the first has been satisfied by what has been done, apply with greater -force to the latter. - -It has been doubted, and a question has been agitated, whether we shall -exercise the power of reconsidering these contracts, and whether a -modification is constitutionally in our power? I will not go into this -subject, or any other which ought to be taken for granted. I shall take -it, that we are authorized, and do mean to interfere; you must act. Do -you mean to pay the principal and interest now due? I believe not. Will -you shelter yourself under the plea of necessity? That is impossible. I -dare say, if the United States were sold, they would at least be worth -six hundred millions of dollars; and we have but eighty millions to -provide for. Having, then, the means and power, I trust you mean to -exercise them; and as you exercise them, you ought to exercise them as -justly as possible; then, to do this, you will, it is said, personify -the three parties concerned--the United States, the original holder, and -the speculator. I do not clearly comprehend the idea of a personified -State; perhaps it arises from my dulness of apprehension. Man, in his -natural capacity, is sometimes obliged to do what is considered unjust; -but a State, when it has power, is not obliged to do what is unjust. The -State, then, in this respect, is doing what an honest man would do, if -he had the power of conducting this business as he thought proper. - -The speculator comes to you with his bond, and tells you it is due. The -soldier tells you that he has done services to a considerable amount, -for which he never has been paid; and that those evidences of the demand -which you gave to him, were obtained from him, for one-tenth part of -what they were declared to be worth. The State says to the speculator, -you have made a great deal, and out of a man who has risked his life, -and borne every burthen which human nature could bear, with the greatest -fortitude which the most virtuous heart is capable of exerting, let him -have a part back. The speculator answers no; here is your bond. Consider -again, replies the State, that the veteran's services, at the expense of -his health and property, at the risk of his life, has saved you and -yours; and not only that, but he is obliged to pay of your demand, more -than he has ever received. What is now his answer? Here is the bond, pay -me my bond. Under these circumstances, supposing the State an -individual, he might, without much infamy to his character, exercise the -power which he has over his own bond, in order to do justice between the -parties. He might say to the speculator, you had the soldier in your -power; you did him injustice; we have you now in our power, we will do -you complete justice, but no more. A private man could never be injured -in his reputation by such conduct: indeed, according to the result of -these circumstances, the hardships of war, and the breach of contract, -have unfortunately inflicted upon the man, the most meritorious in this -community, or perhaps in any other community, sufferings and miseries--a -punishment sufficient to atone for the guilt of the greatest crimes. -This, in the event, appears to be the situation of the saviors of -America. - -Mr. _Madison_ said that the opponents of his proposition had imposed on -its friends not only a heavy task, by the number of their objections, -but a delicate one by the nature of some of them. It had been arranged -as an embarrassing measure which ought to be facilitated, and producing -discussions which might end in disagreeable consequences. However -painful it might be to contradict the wishes of gentlemen whom he -respected, he could promise nothing more, in the present case, than his -endeavors to disappoint their apprehensions. When his judgment could not -yield to the propositions of others, the right to make and support his -own, was a right which he could never suffer to be contested. In -exercising it, he should study to maintain that moderation and -liberality which were due to the greatness of the subject before the -committee. He felt pleasure in acknowledging, that the like spirit had, -in general, directed the arguments on the other side. Free discussions -thus conducted are not only favorable to a right decision, but to a -cheerful acquiescence of the mistaken opponents of it. They might have -the further advantage of recommending the result to the public, by fully -explaining the grounds of it. If the pretensions of a numerous and -meritorious class of citizens be not well founded, or cannot be complied -with, let them see that this is the case, and be soothed, under their -disappointment, with the proof that they have not been overlooked by -their country. - -He would proceed now to review the grounds on which the proposition had -been combated; which he should do without either following those who had -wandered from the field of fair argument, or avoiding those who had kept -within its limits. - -It could not have escaped the committee, that the gentlemen to whom he -was opposed, had reasoned on this momentous question as on an ordinary -case in a court of law; that they had equally strained all the maxims -that could favor the purchasing, or be adverse to the original holder; -and that they dwelt with equal pleasure on every circumstance which -could brighten the pretensions of the former, or discredit those of the -latter. He had not himself attempted, nor did he mean to undervalue the -pretensions of the actual holders. In stating them, he had even used as -strong terms as they themselves could have dictated; but beyond a -certain point he could not go. He must renounce every sentiment which he -had hitherto cherished, before his complaisance could admit that America -ought to erect the monuments of her gratitude, not to those who saved -her liberties, but to those who had enriched themselves in her funds. - -All that he wished was, that the claims of the original holders, not -less than those of the actual holders, should be fairly examined and -justly decided. They had been invalidated by nothing yet urged. A debt -was fairly contracted; according to justice and good faith, it ought to -have been paid in gold or silver; a piece of paper only was substituted. -Was this paper equal in value to gold or silver? No. It was worth, in -the market, which the argument for the purchasing holders makes the -criterion, no more than one-eighth or one-seventh of that value. Was -this depreciated paper freely accepted? No. The Government offered that -or nothing. The relation of the individual to the Government, and the -circumstances of the offer, rendered the acceptance a forced, not a free -one. The same degree of constraint would vitiate a transaction between -man and man, before any Court of Equity on the face of the earth. There -are even cases where consent cannot be pretended; where the property of -the planter or farmer had been taken at the point of the bayonet, and a -certificate presented in the same manner. But why did the creditors part -with their acknowledgment of the debt? In some instances, from -necessity; in others, from a well-founded distrust of the public. -Whether from the one, or the other, they had been injured; they had -suffered loss, through the default of the debtor; and the debtor cannot, -in justice or honor, take advantage of the default. - -Here, then, was a debt acknowledged to have been once due, and which -was never discharged; because the payment was forced and defective. The -balance, consequently, is still due, and is of as sacred a nature as the -claims of the purchasing holder can be; and if both are not to be paid -in the whole, is equally entitled to payment in part. - -He begged gentlemen would not yield too readily to the artificial -niceties of forensic reasoning; that they would consider not the form, -but the substance--not the letter, but the equity--not the bark, but the -pith of the business. It was a great and an extraordinary case; it ought -to be decided on the great and fundamental principles of justice. He had -been animadverted upon, for appealing to the heart as well as the head; -he would be bold, nevertheless, to repeat, that, in great and unusual -questions of morality, the heart is the best judge. - -It had been said, by a member from Massachusetts, that the proposition -was founded on a new principle in Congress. If the present Congress be -meant, that is not strange, for Congress itself is new; if the former -Congress be meant, it is not true, for the principle is found in an act -which had been already cited. After the pay of the army had, during the -war, been nominally and legally discharged in depreciated paper, the -loss was made up to the sufferers. - -It had been said, by a member from New York, that this case was not -parallel, there being no third party like the present holders of -certificates. This objection could not be valid. The Government paid ten -dollars' worth in fact, but only one to the soldier. The soldier was -then the original holder. The soldier assigned it to the citizen; the -citizen then became the actual holder. What was the event? The loss of -the original holder was repaired, after the actual holder had been -settled with, according to the highest market value of his paper. - -He did not mean, however, to decide on the whole merits of this last -transaction; or to contend for a similitude, in all respects, between -the two kinds of paper. One material difference was, that the bills of -credit, by more frequent transfers, and by dividing the change of value -among a greater number of hands, rendered the effect of less consequence -to individuals, and less sensible to the public mind. But this -difference, whatever force it might give to the claims of the purchasing -holder of certificates, could diminish nothing from the claims of the -original holders who assigned them. - -It had been said, by another member from Massachusetts, that the old -Government did every thing in its power. It made requisitions, used -exhortations, and in every respect discharged its duty; but it was to be -remembered, that the debt was not due from the Government, but the -United States. An attorney, with full powers to form, without the means -to fulfil engagements, could never, by his ineffectual, though honest -efforts, exonerate his principal. - -He had been repeatedly reminded of the address of Congress in 1783, -which rejected a discrimination between original and purchasing holders. -At that period, the certificates to the army, and citizens at large, had -not been issued. The transfers were confined to loan-office -certificates, were not numerous, and had been, in great part, made with -little loss to the original creditor. At present, the transfers extend -to a vast proportion of the whole debt, and the loss to the original -holders has been immense. The injustice which has taken place has been -enormous and flagrant, and makes redress a great national object. This -change of circumstances destroys the argument from the act of Congress -referred to; but if implicit regard is to be paid to the doctrines of -that act, any modification of the interest of the debt will be as -inadmissible as a modification of the principal. - -It had been said, that if the losses of the original creditors are -entitled to reparation, Congress ought to repair those suffered from -paper money--from the ravages of the war, and from the act of barring -claims not produced within a limited time. As to the paper money, either -the case is applicable, or it is not: if not applicable, the argument -fails; if applicable, either the depreciated certificates ought to be -liquidated by a like scale, as was applied to the depreciated money; or -the money, even if the whole mass of it was still in circulation, ought -to be literally redeemed, like the certificates. Leaving the gentleman -to make his own choice of these dilemmas, he would only add, himself, -that if there were no other difference between the cases, the manifest -impossibility of redressing the one, and the practicability of -redressing the other, was a sufficient answer to the objection. With -respect to the towns burnt, and other devastations of war, it was -taught, by the writers on the law of nations, that they were to be -numbered among the inevitable calamities of mankind. Still, however, a -Government owed them every alleviation which it could conveniently -afford; but no authority could be found that puts on the same footing -with those calamities, such as proceed from a failure to fulfil the -direct and express obligations of the public. The just claims barred by -the act of limitation, were, in his opinion, clearly entitled to -redress. That act was highly objectionable. The public, which was -interested in shortening the term, undertook to decide, that no claim, -however just, should be admitted, if not presented within nine months. -The act made none of the exceptions usual in such acts, not even in -favor of the most distant parts of the Union. In many instances, it had -been absolutely impossible for the persons injured to know of the -regulation. Some of these instances were within his own knowledge. To -limit the duration of a law to a period, within which it could not -possibly be promulged, and then take advantage of the impossibility, -would be imitating the Roman tyrant, who posted up his edicts so high -that they could not be read, and then punished the people for not -obeying them. - -It has been said, that if the purchased certificates were funded at the -rate proposed, they would fall in the market, and the holders be -injured. It was pretty certain, that the greater part, at least, would -be gainers. He believed that the highest market price, especially with -the arrears of interest incorporated, well funded at six per cent, would -prevent every loss that could justify complaint. - -But foreigners had become purchasers, and ought to be particularly -respected. Foreigners, he remarked, had themselves made a difference -between the value of the foreign and domestic debt; they would, -therefore, the less complain of a difference made by Government here. It -was his opinion that the term stated in the proposition would yield a -greater profit to the foreign purchasers than they could have got for -their money if advanced by them in any of the funds of Europe. - -The proposition had been charged with robbing one set of men to pay -another. If there were robbery in the case, it had been committed on the -original creditors. But, to speak more accurately, as well as more -moderately, the proposition would do no more than withhold a part from -each of two creditors, where both were not to be paid the whole. - -A member from New York has asked whether an original creditor, who had -assigned his certificate, could, in conscience, accept a reimbursement -in the manner proposed? He would not deny that assignments might have -been made with such explanations, or under such circumstances, as would -have that effect; but, in general, the assignments have been made with -reference merely to the market value, and the uncertainty of the steps -that might be taken by the Government. The bulk of the creditors had -assigned under circumstances from which no scruples could arise. In all -cases where a scruple existed, the benefit of the provision might be -renounced. He would, in turn, ask the gentleman, whether there was not -more room to apprehend that the present holder, who had got his -certificate of a distressed and meritorious fellow-citizen for -one-eighth or one-tenth its ultimate value, might not feel some remorse -in retaining so unconscionable an advantage? - -Similar propositions, it was said, had been made and rejected in the -State Legislatures. This was not a fact. The propositions made in the -State Legislatures were not intended to do justice to the injured, but -to seize a profit to the public. - -But no petitions for redress had come from the sufferers. Was merit, -then, to be the less regarded, because it was modest? Perhaps, however, -another explanation ought to be given. Many of the sufferers were poor -and uninformed. Those of another description were so dispersed, that -their interests and efforts could not be brought forward. The case of -the purchasing holders was very different. - -The constitutionality of the proposition had been drawn into question. -He asked whether words could be devised that would place the new -Government more precisely in the same relation to the real creditors -with the old? The power was the same; the obligation was the same. The -means only were varied. - -An objection had been drawn from the article prohibiting _ex post facto_ -laws. But as _ex post facto_ laws relate to criminal, not civil cases, -the constitution itself requires this definition, by adding to a like -restriction on the States an express one against retrospective laws of a -civil nature. - -It had been said, that foreigners had been led to purchase, by their -faith in the article of the constitution relating to the public debts. -He would answer this objection by a single fact: Foreigners had shown, -by the market price in Europe, that they trusted the nature of foreign -debt more under the old Government, than the nature of the domestic debt -under the new Government. - -Objections to the measure had been drawn from its supposed tendency to -impede public credit. He thought it, on the contrary, perfectly -consistent with the establishment of public credit. It was in vain to -say, that Government ought never to revise measures once decided. Great -caution on this head ought, no doubt, to be observed; but there were -situations in which, without some legislative interposition, the first -principles of justice, and the very ends of civil society, would be -frustrated. The gentlemen themselves had been compelled to make -exceptions to the general doctrine; they would probably make more before -the business was at an end. - -It had been urged, that if Government should interpose in the present -case, as interposition would be authorized in any case whatever where -the stock might fluctuate, the principle would apply as well to a fall -of sixty or seventy per cent. as to a fall of six hundred or seven -hundred per cent. He could not admit this inference. A distinction was -essential between an extreme case, and a case short of it. The line was -difficult to be drawn; but it was no more incumbent on him than on his -opponents to draw it. They themselves could not deny that a certain -extremity of the evil would have justified the interposition. Suppose -that the distress of the alienating creditors had been ten times as -great as it was; that instead of two, three, and four shillings in the -pound, they had received a farthing only in the pound; and that the -certificates lay now in the hands of the purchasers in that state, or -even at a less value, was there a member who would rise up and say, that -the purchasers ought to be paid the entire nominal sum, and the original -sufferer be entitled to no indemnification whatever? - -Gentlemen had triumphed in the want of a precedent to the measure. No -government, it was said, had interposed to redress fluctuations in its -public paper. But where was the government that had funded its debts -under the circumstances of the American debt? If no government had done -so, there could be no precedent either for or against the measure, -because the occasion itself was unprecedented. And if no similar -occasion had before existed in any country, the precedent to be set -would at least be harmless, because no similar occasion would be likely -to happen in this. - -If gentlemen persisted, however, in demanding precedents, he was happy -in being able to gratify them with two, which, though not exactly -parallel, were, on that account, of the greater force, since the -interposition of Government had taken place where the emergency could -less require them. - -The first was the case of the Canada bills. During the war which ended -in 1763, and which was attended with a revolution of the Government in -Canada, the supplies obtained for the French army in that province were -paid for in bills of exchange and certificates. This paper depreciated, -and was bought up chiefly by British merchants. The sum and the -depreciation were so considerable as to become a subject of negotiation -between France and Great Britain at the peace. The negotiations produced -a particular article, by which it was agreed by France that the paper -ought to be redeemed, and admitted by Great Britain that it should be -redeemed at a liquidated value. In the year 1766 this article was -accordingly carried into effect by ministers from the two courts, which -reduced the paper in the hands of the British holders, in some -instances, as much as seventy-five per cent. below its nominal value. It -was stated, indeed, by the reporter of the case, that the holders of the -paper had themselves concurred in the liquidation; but it was not -probable that the concurrence was voluntary. If it was voluntary, it -shows that they themselves were sensible of the equity of the sacrifice. - -The other case was of still greater weight, as it had no relation to war -or treaty, and took place in the nation which has been held up as a -model with respect to public credit. In the year 1713, the civil list of -Great Britain had fallen into arrears to the amount of £500,000. The -creditors who had furnished supplies to the Government had, instead of -money, received debentures only from the respective officers. These had -depreciated. In that state, they were assigned in some instances; in -others, covenanted to be assigned. When the Parliament appropriated -funds for satisfying these arrears, they inserted an express provision -in the act, that the creditors who had been obliged, by the default of -Government, to dispose of their paper at a loss, might redeem it from -the assignees by repaying the actual price, with an interest of six per -cent., and that all agreements and covenants to assign should be -absolutely void. Here then was an interposition on the very principle, -that a Government ought to redress the wrongs sustained by its default, -and on an occasion trivial when compared to that under consideration; -yet it does not appear that the public credit of the nation was injured -by it. - -The best source of confidence in Government was the apparent honesty of -its views. The proposition could not possibly be ascribed to any other -motive than this, because the public was not to gain a farthing by it. -The next source was an experienced punctuality in the payments due from -the Government. For this support to public credit, he relied on what had -been experienced by a part of the foreign creditors; on the provision to -be made for the residue; and on the punctuality which, he flattered -himself, would be observed in all future payments of the domestic -creditors. He was more apprehensive of injury to public credit from such -modifications of the interest of the public debt as some gentlemen -seemed to have in view. In these the public would be the gainer, and the -plea of inability the more alarming, because it was so easy to set up, -so difficult to be disproved, and for which, consequently, the -temptations would be so alluring. - -Mr. SENEY rose and observed, that it was with reluctance he attempted to -express to the committee his ideas upon a question which had been so -fully and ably discussed. However, as it had been expected that -gentlemen would not, in a case of such magnitude, be content with merely -a silent vote, he rose to declare the reasons upon which his decision -was founded. In doing this, he hoped that he should not use epithets -which might be deemed harsh, or language which would be offensive; that -although the sentiments of other members should differ from his, he -wished so far to respect those sentiments as to treat them with decency. - -He considered the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. -MADISON) was designed to effect two purposes: the one, a compensation to -the original creditors, who, during the late war, in times of distress, -had loaned money, furnished supplies, and rendered military services; -and who had only received satisfaction therefor in paper of -inconsiderable value, forced on them by the public, and depreciated by -their acts. This class of citizens, he conceived, had a just and -equitable claim for the full difference in value between that paper, -when paid, and specie. The other object of the proposition alluded to, -was, he said, to compensate those creditors who now hold alienated -certificates. Each description of those creditors had, in his opinion, -claims on the public. The first was founded on an original contract -between them and the Government, part of which only had been complied -with, and the residue still remained undischarged. The other was -grounded on having possession of the paper which contained the promise -to pay. - -It has been contended that the United States have not ability to pay -both. In this case a question arises: What is, upon the whole, most just -and expedient? Some gentlemen contend, that it is incumbent on us to -make full provision for those who hold the assigned certificates, -without any for the original creditors who have alienated them. Others -think, that the misfortune of Government, in this respect, should not be -felt by either class solely, but be borne by both. That it is more just -to adopt a mode of composition, by which those creditors should mutually -share in this misfortune, and be mutually benefited by a provision -within our power to make; with those his sentiments accorded. He could -not be impressed with the justice or reason of a measure calculated to -make a total sacrifice of one class of creditors, and full payment to -the other class. Such a step could not, in his opinion, be justified in -any distinction or precedence which existed in their claims. When it was -considered that the original creditors furnished money and supplies, and -rendered services essential to the preservation of their country, and at -a time when its liberties were invaded, and every thing which can be -dear to freemen was in jeopardy and at stake, he could not apprehend -that their claims would be deemed inferior to those of their rivals. In -his opinion, these circumstances entitled them to superior notice. -Believing, however, that the amendment under consideration would, upon -the whole, effect more substantial justice than any other practicable -scheme that had been proposed to the committee, or which he had heard -of, his assent would, therefore, be given to it. - - -TUESDAY, February 19. - -_Public Credit._ - -The House again went into a committee on the report of the Secretary of -the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair. - -Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration. - -Mr. LIVERMORE said he was against any discrimination between the soldier -and other public creditor, who held a public security, made payable to -bearer, and consequently transferable, with intent that they might be -sold, if convenience or necessity should require it. This had been -understood by all parties, as well in America as in foreign countries, -and they had been sold accordingly. The advocates for discrimination -have not denied this; they have only alleged that the low rate at which -the poor soldier or other public creditor had sold his securities was a -sufficient reason for Congress to interfere and set aside the sale. In -opposition to this, he observed, that persons had a right to buy and -sell at such prices as they could mutually agree upon, provided there -was no fraud. - -A diamond, a horse, or a lot of ground, might be sold too cheap, or too -dear, and so might any other property; but Government could not -interfere without destroying the general system of law and justice. Esau -had sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, and heaven and earth had -confirmed the sale. The distresses of the army, both officers and -soldiers, at the time they received and sold their securities, had been -painted in too strong colors. They were not so emaciated by sickness and -famine as had been represented. They were crowned with victory, and -received with applause by their fellow-citizens; and although they had -been paid in paper, their loss had been made up by large bounties, and -in other emoluments; so that, in point of property, they were equal to -their fellow-citizens who had borne the burden of taxes under which many -are laboring to this day. Let them be called brave soldiers, patriotic -soldiers, but not poor soldiers. They ought to be governed by the same -system of justice that governs others; but their contracts ought not to -be set aside out of partiality to them. The case quoted from the statute -of Queen Anne is not applicable to this case, inasmuch as Government had -not originally made the debentures therein mentioned transferable. -Neither did the case of the Canada bills apply; for, as he understood, -those bills were paid to British merchants and to others who had -purchased them. - -Mr. MADISON.--If paper, or the honor of statues or medals can discharge -the debts of justice, payable in gold or silver, we can not only -exonerate ourselves from those due to the original holders, but from -those of the assignees. So far as paper goes, the latter have received -the compensation. If honor can discharge the debt, they have received -civil honors; look around to the officers of every Government in the -Union, and you find them sharing equal honors with those bestowed on the -original creditors. But, sir, the debt due in gold and silver is not -payable either in honor, appointments, or in paper. - -Gentlemen say it will work injustice; but are we not as much bound to -repair the injustice done by the United States? Yet I do not believe the -assertion has been established by any thing that has been urged in its -support. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. STONE) acknowledges that there -is a moral obligation to compensate the original holders; how will they -get what he admits is their due? He is willing to make an effort, by -applying the resources of the country to that purpose; but if we are to -judge by the sentiments of other gentlemen who have spoken on this -occasion, we have little to expect from that quarter. Suppose the debt -had depreciated to a mere trifle, and suppose the sale of the Western -Territory had extinguished the certificates, let me ask, whether, if the -United States had thus exonerated themselves from the obligation to the -assignee, whether the claim of the original holder would not still -remain in its full force in a moral view? But believing the point of -justice to be exhausted, I will just add one remark upon the -practicability. The transferred certificates, generally, will show the -names of the original holders, and here there is no difficulty. With -respect to those granted to the heads of either of the five great -departments, the books of the Treasurer of Loans, as well as the -accounts of those departments now in the Treasury, will designate, with -a great degree of accuracy, and this may be followed up by the usual -mode of obtaining evidence; and I believe every security may be provided -against fraud in this case that was provided in the case of the -commissioners who were sent into the respective States for ascertaining -and liquidating the claims of individuals. That there will be some -difficulty I admit, but it is enough for me that it is not insuperable; -and I trust, with the assistance which the cause of equity and justice -will ever obtain from the members of the National Legislature, they will -easily be surmounted. - - -MONDAY, February 22. - -_Public Credit._ - -The House then resolved itself into a committee on the Report of the -Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair. - -Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration. - -Mr. PAGE.--As the worthy and eloquent member who replied to me did not -answer the questions I put to the committee, I suppose, he either did -not hear them, did not understand me, or could not answer them. I hope, -before the committee decide, they will attempt at least to resolve them. -I asked, where is the injustice of the State's complying with its -engagements made to the first holders of certificates as far as the case -admits? Where is the justice of doing more for the assignee than he or -his assignor expected could or would be done? Where is the breach of -faith in Government, if it paid its whole debt with justice, blended -with mercy? Where is the interference in contracts, when the proposition -is to comply sacredly, as far as the case will admit, with the contracts -between a State and its creditors? I asked, is not the assignment of -certificates confirmed by the motion? Does it not give to the assignee -the very thing stipulated to be given, that is, whatever sum Government -shall be pleased to pay for the certificates, for that was the condition -of the assignment? And is not the sum now proposed more than either the -first or last holder, till within these few days, supposed would be paid -him? I asked also, ought not an honest assignee to be pleased that -Government intends to do that justice to his assignor which he ought to -do himself, were the whole payment made to him? I asked, of what is the -assignee deprived but of his late sanguine expectations? I asked, -whether the proposition before us does not rather establish confidence -in Government than the contrary? For, sir, to make use of the comparison -which has been often made here between the State and an obligor on a -bond, what could give more credit to any man's bonds than to find that, -though they had depreciated to half a crown in the pound, he paid the -whole twenty shillings; ten shillings to the assignee, who had given but -two shillings and sixpence, and ten to the obligee who had sold at so -great a loss? - -It is true Congress may, consistently with the rules of common law -courts, pay the bearer and take no notice of the creditors; but were a -Court of Equity instituted to decide on the case of certain speculators, -how would they decide? Government, in the most solemn manner, pledged -itself to make compensation to the soldiers, have they done it? Instead -of doing this, certain persons, who took advantage of their ignorance -and their poverty, bought up the evidence of their debt at one-eighth of -the nominal value; and in some States these very men had drawn what -constituted the principal of the purchase with six per cent. interest in -three years. - -In what does the case differ between the depreciated paper and the -certificates? Paper money was redeemed at forty for one, as well to the -last as the first holder; the same principle would lead to give the last -holder of the certificate the depreciated value at which he bought it. -But we propose to work no injustice, we give the first holder, if he is -the holder still, the full value stipulated. It would not be injustice -to consider the assignee, as having paid what he advanced, in -consequence of his confidence in Government, on account of that -Government; and that the Government ought to repay him what he so -advanced; having repaid that sum, the balance ought to go to the credit -of the assignee. I am willing, on this consideration, to call the -speculator the friend and supporter of the Government, who kindly lent -us when in need, two shillings and sixpence in every pound, to advance -to the poor soldier. If certificates are the evidence of the debt, it -proves, sir, that the balance is due to him in whose name it issued. -This is the day of payment, and we must pay accordingly; and here permit -me to remark, in reply to the observation of the gentleman from New -Hampshire, (Mr. LIVERMORE,) that _Jacob_ was punished for his fraud, but -for his faith enjoyed the promise; even so let us regard those who had -so much confidence in us as to advance two shillings and sixpence to the -distressed soldier. - -Mr. HEISTER was in hopes this question would be postponed for the -present, in order to go into a consideration of the ways and means: -when, if it appeared that the United States were incapable of making -full provision, it might be considered, whether one deviation would not -authorize the other? If any gentleman would make a motion to that -effect, he would second him. - -The question was now taken on Mr. MADISON's proposition for a -composition, and it passed in the negative; yeas 13, nays 36.[35] - - -WEDNESDAY, March 17. - -_On Slavery._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -Report of the committee, to whom was referred the memorial of the people -called Quakers, &c., Mr. BENSON in the chair. - -The question of order was put, when it was determined that Mr. TUCKER's -last amendment was not in order. - -The report was then taken up by paragraphs. The first proposition being -read, - -Mr. WHITE moved that it be struck out. He did this, he said, because he -was against entering into a consideration at this time of the powers of -Congress. He thought it would be time enough for this when the powers -are called in question. He then read the next, which he said was -entirely unnecessary, as it contains nothing more than what is contained -in express terms in the constitution. He passed on to the third, which -he said was equally unnecessary; and to the fourth, which was provided -for by the constitution. He said, that he should agree to the fifth and -sixth, with certain modifications. Agreeable to this idea, he offered -those two in a different form. He disagreed to the seventh proposition, -as unnecessary and improper. He concluded by observing, that his wish -was to promote the happiness of mankind--and among the rest those who -are the objects of the present consideration--but this he wished to do -in conformity to the principles of justice and with a due regard to the -peace and happiness of others; he would contribute all in his power to -their comfort and well-being while in a state of slavery; but he was -fully of opinion that Congress has no right to interfere in the -business, any further than he proposed by the two propositions as -modified. He did not, however, anticipate the difficulties from a total -prohibition which some gentlemen seem to apprehend--and if Congress had -it in their power to interdict this business at the present moment, he -did not think the essential interests of the Southern States would -suffer. Twenty years ago, he supposed the idea he now suggested would -have caused universal alarm. Virginia, however, about twelve years -since, prohibited the importation of negroes from Africa, and the -consequences apprehended never were realized; on the contrary, the -agriculture of that State was never in a more flourishing situation. - -Mr. HARTLEY.--I have the honor to be one of the committee on the -memorials, and will, with the leave of this committee, mention some -particulars which took place in the course of the investigation of the -business. He premised that he was sorry that the question of right had -been brought forward yesterday--and was not a little surprised to hear -the cause of slavery advocated in that House, and language held towards -the petitioners which his experience had never shown to be -Parliamentary--he read some memorandums taken in committee, and had -particular reference to a law passed in Grenada, which he applauded for -its humanity, and truly benevolent spirit. He reprobated the illiberal -treatment which the memorialists had received, and asserted that they -were friends to the constitution, and that on the present occasion they -came forward from the most laudable motives, from a wish to promote the -happiness of mankind; that their conduct, so far from meriting censure, -deserved, and would receive, the applause of the civilized world. - -Mr. BROWN, in a considerable speech, advocated the motion of Mr. WHITE. -He enlarged on the pernicious consequences that may be expected to flow -from the interference of Congress; he pointed out the effects which had -resulted from the interposition of the Quakers, by which the prospects -of the Southern States in slaves had been rendered very precarious--and -if Congress should adopt the report as it stands, the consequences would -be pernicious in the highest degree. The negro property will be -annihilated. The emancipation of slaves will be effected in time, it -ought to be a gradual business; but he hoped that Congress would not, to -gratify people who never had been friendly to the independence of -America, precipitate the business to the great injury of the Southern -States. - -Mr. BURKE entered into a very extensive consideration of the subject. He -gave an account of the humane treatment which the slaves of the Southern -States received, their habitations, families, children, privileges, &c. -He then showed that their emancipation would tend to make them wretched -in the highest degree. He animadverted with great freedom on the past -and present conduct of the Quakers. He denied that they were the friends -of freedom; he said, that during the late war, they were for bringing -this country under a foreign yoke; they descended to the character of -spies; they supplied the enemy with provisions; they were guides and -conductors to their armies; and whenever the American army came into -their neighborhood, they found themselves in an enemy's country. Mr. -BURKE was proceeding in this strain, when he was interrupted by being -called to order. A warm altercation ensued, and in the midst of it, a -motion was made that the committee rise. This motion was negatived, and -Mr. BURKE added a few more observations on the injustice of the measure -of interference, as it respected the property of the Southern States. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said he lamented much that this subject -had been brought before the House; that he had deprecated it from the -beginning, because he foresaw that it would produce a very unpleasant -discussion; that it was a subject of a nature to excite the alarms of -the Southern members, who could not view, without anxiety, any -interference in it on the part of Congress. He remarked, that as they -were resolved into a Committee of the Whole on the powers of Congress -respecting slavery and the slave trade, in consequence of certain -memorials from the people called Quakers and the Pennsylvania Society -for the abolition of slavery, the whole subject, as well as the contents -of these memorials, was under consideration. He should therefore enter -into the business at large, and offer some comments on the contents of -the memorial. - -The memorial from the Quakers contained, in his opinion, a very indecent -attack on the character of those States which possess slaves. It -reprobates slavery as bringing down reproach on the Southern States, and -expatiates on the detestation due to the licentious wickedness of the -African trade, and the inhuman tyranny and bloodguiltiness inseparable -from it. He could not but consider it as calculated to fix a stigma of -the blackest nature on the State he had the honor to represent, and to -hold its citizens up to public view as men divested of every principle -of honor and humanity. Considering it in that light, he felt it -incumbent on him not only to refute those atrocious calumnies, but to -resent the improper language made use of by the memorialists. Before he -entered into the discussion, he begged to observe, that when any class -of men deviated from their own religious principles, and officiously -came forward in a business with which they had no concern, and attempted -to dictate to Congress, he could not ascribe their conduct to any other -cause but to an intolerant spirit of persecution. This application came -with the worst grace possible from the Quakers, who professed never to -intermeddle in politics, but to submit quietly to the laws of the -country. - -He had met with a publication which came out in the year 1775, (at a -period when the affairs of America were in a very desponding situation,) -entitled "The ancient Testimony and Principles of the Quakers." It set -forth that their religious principles restrained them from having any -hand or connivance in setting up and putting down kings and governments; -that this was God's peculiar prerogative for causes best known to -himself; that it was not their business to be busybodies above their -stations, but only to pray for the King and safety of their nation, that -they might live a quiet and peaceable life, under the Government which -God was pleased to set over them. If these were really their -sentiments, why did they not abide by them? Why did they not leave that, -which they call God's work, to be managed by himself? Those principles -should instruct them to wait with patience and humility for the event of -all public measures, and to receive that event as the Divine will. Their -conduct on this occasion proved that they did not believe what they -professed, or that they had not virtue enough to practise what they -believed. Did they mean to rob the Almighty of what they call his -prerogative? And were they not partial ministers of their own -acknowledged principles? It was difficult to credit their pretended -scruples; because, while they were exclaiming against the Mammon of this -world, they are hunting after it with a step steady as time, and an -appetite keen as the grave. - -The memorial from the Pennsylvania Society applied, in express terms, -for an emancipation of slaves, and the report of the committee appeared -to hold out the idea that Congress might exercise the power of -emancipating after the year 1808; for it is said that Congress could not -emancipate slaves prior to that period. He remarked, that either the -power of manumission still remained with the several States, or it was -exclusively vested in Congress; for no one would contend that such a -power would be concurrent in the several States and the United States. -He then showed that the State Governments clearly retained all the -rights of sovereignty which they had before the establishment of the -constitution, unless they were exclusively delegated to the United -States; and this could only exist where the Constitution granted, in -express terms, an exclusive authority to the Union, or where it granted -in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the -States from exercising the like authority, or where it granted an -authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would -be repugnant. - -He applied these principles to the case in question; and asked, whether -the constitution had, in express terms, vested the Congress with the -power of manumission? Or whether it restrained the States from -exercising that power? Or whether there was any authority given to the -Union, with which the exercise of this right by any State would be -inconsistent? If these questions were answered in the negative, it -followed that Congress had not an exclusive right to the power of -manumission. Had it a concurrent right with the States? No gentleman -would assert it, because the absurdity was obvious. For a State -regulation on the subject might differ from a Federal regulation; in -which case one or the other must give way. As the laws of the United -States were paramount to those of the individual States, the Federal -regulations would abrogate those of the States, consequently the States -would thus be divested of a power which it was evident they now had, and -might exercise whenever they thought proper. But admitting that -Congress had authority to manumit the slaves in America, and were -disposed to exercise it, would the Southern States acquiesce in such a -measure without a struggle? Would the citizens of that country tamely -suffer their property to be torn from them? Would even the citizens of -the other States, which did not possess this property, desire to have -all the slaves let loose upon them? Would not such a step be injurious -even to the slaves themselves? It was well known that they were an -indolent people, improvident, averse to labor: when emancipated, they -would either starve or plunder. Nothing was a stronger proof of the -absurdity of emancipation than the fanciful schemes which the friends to -the measure had suggested; one was, to ship them out of the country, and -colonize them in some foreign region. This plan admitted that it would -be dangerous to retain them within the United States after they were -manumitted: but surely it would be inconsistent with humanity to banish -these people to a remote country, and to expel them from their native -soil, and from places to which they had a local attachment. It would be -no less repugnant to the principles of freedom, not to allow them to -remain here, if they desired it. How could they be called freemen, if -they were, against their consent, to be expelled from the country? Thus -did the advocates for emancipation acknowledge that the blacks, when -liberated, ought not to remain here to stain the blood of the whites by -a mixture of the races. - -Another plan was to liberate all those who should be born after a -certain limited period. Such a scheme would produce this very -extraordinary phenomenon, that the mother would be a slave and her child -would be free. These young emancipated negroes, by associating with -their enslaved parents, would participate in all the debasements which -slavery is said to occasion. But allowing that a practicable scheme of -general emancipation could be devised, there can be no doubt that the -two races would still remain distinct. It is known, from experience, -that the whites had such an idea of their superiority over the blacks, -that they never even associated with them; even the warmest friends to -the blacks kept them at a distance, and rejected all intercourse with -them. Could any instance be quoted of their intermarrying; the Quakers -asserted that nature made all men equal, and that the difference of -color should not place negroes on a worse footing in society than the -whites; but had any of them ever married a negro, or would any of them -suffer their children to mix their blood with that of a black? They -would view with abhorrence such an alliance. - -Mr. S. then read some extracts from Mr. Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, -proving that negroes were by nature an inferior race of beings; and that -the whites would always feel a repugnance at mixing their blood with -that of the blacks. Thus, he proceeded, that respectable author, who was -desirous of countenancing emancipation, was, on a consideration of the -subject, induced candidly to avow that the difficulties appeared -insurmountable. The friends to manumission had said, that by prohibiting -the further importation of slaves, and by liberating those born after a -certain period, a gradual emancipation might take place, and that in -process of time the very color would be extinct, and there would be none -but whites. He was at a loss to learn how that consequence would result. -If the blacks did not intermarry with the whites, they would remain -black to the end of time; for it was not contended that liberating them -would whitewash them; if they would intermarry with the whites, then the -white race would be extinct, and the American people would be all of the -mulatto breed. In whatever light, therefore, the subject was viewed, the -folly of emancipation was manifest. He trusted these considerations -would prevent any further application to Congress on this point, and -would so far have weight with the committee as to reject the clause -altogether, or at least to declare, in plain terms, that Congress has no -right whatever to manumit the slaves of this country. - -Various objections, said he, had at different times been alleged against -the abominable practice, as it had been called, of one man exercising -dominion over another; but slavery was no new thing in the world. The -Romans, the Greeks, and other nations of antiquity, held slaves at the -time Christianity first dawned on society, and the professors of its -mild doctrines never preached against it. [Here Mr. S. read a quotation -from the Roman and Grecian History, and from some accounts of the -government and manners of the people of Africa, before they had any -knowledge of the African traders, from which it appeared that slavery -was not disapproved of by the Apostles when they went about diffusing -the principles of Christianity; and that it was not owing to the African -trade, as had been alleged, that the people of Africa made war on each -other.] - -Another objection against slavery was, that the number of slaves in the -Southern States weakened that part of the Union, and in case of invasion -would require a greater force to protect it. Negroes, it was said, would -not fight; but he would ask whether it was owing to their being black or -to their being slaves? if to their being black, then unquestionably -emancipating them would not remedy the evil, for they would still remain -black; if it was owing to their being slaves, he denied the position: -for it was an undeniable truth, that in many countries slaves made -excellent soldiers. In Russia, Hungary, Poland, peasants were slaves, -and yet were brave troops. In Scotland, not many years ago, the Highland -peasants were absolute slaves to their lairds, and they were renowned -for their bravery. The Turks were as much enslaved as the negroes--their -property and lives were at the absolute disposal of the Sultan, yet they -fought with undaunted courage. Many other instances might be quoted, -but those would suffice to refute the fact. Had experience proved that -the negroes would not make good soldiers? He did not assert that they -would, but they had never been tried; discipline was every thing; white -militia made but indifferent soldiers before they were disciplined. It -was well known that according to the present art of war, a soldier was a -mere machine, and he did not see why a black machine was not as good as -a white one; in one respect the black troops would have the advantage in -appearing more horrible in the eyes of the enemy. But admitting that -they would not fight, to what would the argument lead? Undoubtedly to -show that the Quakers, Moravians, and all the non-resisting and -non-fighting sects, constitute the weakness of the country. Did they -contribute to strengthen the country against invasion by staying at home -and joining the invader as soon as he was successful? But they furnished -money, he should be told, and paid substitutes; and did not the slaves, -by increasing the agriculture of the country, add to its wealth, and -thereby increase its strength? Did they not moreover perform many -laborious services in the camp and in the field, assist in transporting -baggage, conveying artillery, throwing up fortifications, and thus -increase the numbers in the ranks by supplying their places in these -services? Nor was it necessary that every part of the empire should -furnish fighting men; one part supplied men, another money; one part was -strong in population, another in valuable exports, which added to the -opulence of the whole. Great Britain obtained no soldiers from her East -and West India settlements, were they therefore useless? She was obliged -to send troops to protect them, but their valuable trade furnished her -with means of paying those troops. - -Another objection was that the public opinion was against slavery. How -did that appear? Were there any petitions on the subject excepting that -from the Pennsylvania Society and a few Quakers? And were they to judge -for the whole Continent? Were the citizens of the Northern and Eastern -States to dictate to Congress on a measure in which the Southern States -were so deeply interested? There were no petitions against slavery from -the Southern States, and they were the only proper judges of what was -for their interest. The toleration of slavery in the several States was -a matter of internal regulation and policy, in which each State had a -right to do as she pleased, and no other State had any right to -intermeddle with her policy or laws. If the citizens of the Northern -States were displeased with the toleration of slavery in the Southern -States, the latter were equally disgusted with some things tolerated in -the former. - -He had mentioned on a former occasion the dangerous tenets and -pernicious practices of the sect of Shaking Quakers, who preached -against matrimony, and whose doctrine and example, if they prevailed, -would either depopulate the United States, or people it with a spurious -race. However the people of South Carolina reprobated the gross and -immoral conduct of these Shakers, they had not petitioned Congress to -expel them from the Continent, though they thought such a measure would -be serviceable to the United States. - -The Legislature of South Carolina had prohibited theatrical -representations, deeming them improper; but they did not trouble -Congress with an application to abolish them in New York and -Philadelphia. The Southern citizens might also consider the toleration -of Quakers as an injury to the community, because in time of war they -would not defend their country from the enemy, and in time of peace they -were interfering in the concerns of others, and doing every thing in -their power to excite the slaves in the Southern States to insurrection; -notwithstanding which, the people of those States had not required the -assistance of Congress to exterminate the Quakers. - -But he could not help observing, that this squeamishness was very -extraordinary at this time. The Northern States knew that the Southern -States had slaves before they confederated with them. If they had such -an abhorrence for slavery, why, said Mr. S., did they not cast us off -and reject our alliance? The truth was, that the best informed part of -the citizens of the Northern States knew that slavery was so ingrafted -into the policy of the Southern States, that it could not be eradicated -without tearing up by the roots their happiness, tranquillity, and -prosperity; that if it were an evil, it was one for which there was no -remedy, and therefore, like wise men, they acquiesced in it. We, on the -other hand, knew that the Quaker doctrines had taken such deep root in -some of the States, that all resistance to them must be useless; we -therefore made a compromise on both sides--we took each other, with our -mutual bad habits and respective evils, for better, for worse; the -Northern States adopted us with our slaves, and we adopted them with -their Quakers. There was then an implied compact between the Northern -and Southern people that no step should be taken to injure the property -of the latter, or to disturb their tranquillity. It was therefore with -great pain that he viewed the anxiety of some of the members to pay such -uncommon respect to the memorialists, as even to set aside the common -rules of proceeding, and attempt to commit the memorials the very day -they were presented, though the Southern members had solicited one day's -delay. Such proceedings had justly raised an alarm in the minds of -himself and his Southern colleagues; and feeling that alarm, they would -have acted a dishonorable part to their constituents had they not -expressed themselves with that warmth and solicitude which some -gentlemen had disapproved. - -A proper consideration of this business must convince every candid mind -that emancipation would be attended with one or other of these -consequences: either that a mixture of the races would degenerate the -whites, without improving the blacks, or that it would create two -separate classes of people in the community, involved in inveterate -hostility, which would terminate in the massacre and extirpation of one -or the other, as the Moors were expelled from Spain, and the Danes from -England. The negroes would not be benefited by it; free negroes never -improve in talents, never grow rich, and continue to associate with the -people of their own color. This is owing either to the natural aversion -the whites entertain towards them, and an opinion of the superiority of -their race, or to the natural attachment the blacks have to those of -their own color; in either case it proves that they will, after -manumission, continue a distinct people, and have separate interests. -The author already quoted has proved that they are an inferior race even -to the Indians. - -After the last war, a number of negroes which had been stolen from the -Southern States, and carried to England, either quitted the persons who -had carried them there, or were abandoned by them. Unable to provide for -themselves, and rejected from the society of the common people of -England, they were begging about the streets of London in great numbers; -they supplicated captains of vessels to carry them back to their owners -in America, preferring slavery there to freedom in England. Many of them -were shipped to Africa by the humanity of the English, and were either -butchered or made slaves of by their savage countrymen, or reshipped for -sale to the plantations. - -But some persons have been of opinion, that if the further importation -of slaves could be prohibited, there would be a gradual extinction of -the species. Having shown the absurdity of liberating the _postnati_ -without extending it to all the slaves old and young, and the great -absurdity and even impracticability of extending it to all, I shall say -a few words with regard to the extinction. That would be impossible, -because they increase; to occasion an extinction, Congress must prohibit -all intercourse between the sexes; this would be an act of humanity they -would not thank us for, nor would they be persuaded that it was for -their own good; or Congress must, like Herod, order all the children to -be put to death as soon as born. If, then, nothing but evil would result -from emancipation, under the existing circumstances of the country, why -should Congress stir at all in the business, or give any countenance to -such dangerous applications? We have been told that the Government ought -to manifest a disposition inimical to this practice which the people -reprobate. If some citizens, from misinformation and ignorance, have -imbibed prejudices against the Southern States, if ill-intentioned -authors have related false facts, and gross misrepresentations tending -to traduce the character of a whole State, and to mislead the citizens -of other States, is that a sufficient reason why a large territory is to -be depopulated, merely to gratify the wish of some misinformed -individuals? But what have the citizens of the other States to do with -our slaves? Have they any right to interfere with our internal policy? - -This is not an object of general concern, for I have already proved that -it does not weaken the Union; but admit that it did, will the abolition -of slavery strengthen South Carolina? It can only be cultivated by -slaves; the climate, the nature of the soil, ancient habits, forbid the -whites from performing the labor. Experience convinces us of the truth -of this. Great Britain made every attempt to settle Georgia by whites -alone, and failed, and was compelled at length to introduce slaves; -after which that State increased very rapidly in opulence and -importance. If the slaves are emancipated, they will not remain in that -country; remove the cultivators of the soil, and the whole of the low -country, all the fertile rice and indigo swamps will be deserted, and -become a wilderness. What, then, becomes of its strength? Will such a -scheme increase it? Instead of increasing the population of the whites, -there will be no whites at all. If the low country is deserted, where -will be the commerce, the valuable exports of that country, the large -revenue raised from its imports and from the consumption of the rich -planters? In a short time, the Northern and Eastern States will supply -us with their manufactures; if you depopulate the rich low country of -South Carolina and Georgia, you will give us a blow which will -immediately recoil on yourselves. Suppose there are one hundred and -forty thousand slaves in those States, which require annually five yards -of cloth each, making seven hundred thousand yards at half a dollar a -yard, this makes three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, besides the -articles of linen, flannel, Osnaburgh, blankets, molasses, sugar, and -rum, for the use of the negroes; now, either the Eastern and Middle -States will supply us with all these articles, or they will receive the -benefit of the impost on them if they are imported from foreign -countries. Without the rice swamps of Carolina, Charleston would decay, -so would the commerce of that city; this would injure the back country. -If you injure the Southern States, the injury would reach our Northern -and Eastern brethren; for the States are links of one chain; if we break -one, the whole must fall to pieces. Thus it is manifest, that in -proportion to the increase of our agriculture will our wealth be -increased; the increase of which will augment that of our sister States, -which will either supply us with their commodities, or raise a large -revenue upon us, or be the carriers of our produce to foreign markets. - -It has been said, that the toleration of slavery brings down reproach on -America. It only brings reproach on those who tolerate it, and we are -ready to bear our share. We know that none but prejudiced and uncandid -persons, who have hastily considered the subject, and are ignorant of -the real situation of the Southern States, throw out these insinuations. -We found slavery ingrafted in the very policy of the country when we -were born, and we are persuaded of the impolicy of removing it; if it be -a moral evil, it is like many others which exist in all civilized -countries, and which the world quietly submit to. Humanity has been a -topic of declamation on this subject: that sentiment has different -operations on different individuals, and he had it in his power to show, -that humanity first gave origin to the transportation of slaves from -Africa into America. _Bartholomew de las Casas_, Bishop of Chiapa, a -Spaniard renowned for his humanity and virtues, in order to save the -Indians in South America from slavery, prevailed on his monarch to -substitute Africans, which were accordingly purchased on the coast of -Africa, and shipped to the Spanish colonies to work in the mines: this -appears in _Robertson's History of America_, which Mr. S. quoted. At -this day, the Spaniards give considerable encouragement to the -transportation of slaves into their islands. Mr. S. read the edict for -that purpose. - -Another objection is, that slavery vitiates and debases the mind of the -owner of this sort of property. Where, he asked, is the proof of this -allegation? Do the citizens of the Southern States exhibit more -ferociousness in their manners, more barbarity in their dispositions, -than those of the other States? Are crimes more frequently committed -there? A proof of the absurdity of this charge may be found in the -writings of those who wish to disseminate this mischievous idea, and -yet, in their relations of facts, they themselves contradict it. They -lay down general principles, which they take upon credit from others, or -which they publish with sinister views, and when they enter into a -detail of the history of those States, they overset their own doctrines. -Thus, one writer tells us, that the Southern citizen, who is educated in -principles of superiority to the slaves which surround him, has no idea -of government, obedience, and good order, till he mingles with the hardy -and free-spirited yeomanry of the North, and that after mixing with -them, he will return home with his mind more enlarged, his views more -liberalized, and his affections rectified, and he becomes a more -generous friend to the rights of human nature. But hear what the Eastern -traveller is to learn by visiting the enslaved regions of the South. He -will see, says the same writer, immediately after, industry crowned with -affluence, independence, hospitality, liberality of manners; and, -notwithstanding the prevalence of domestic slavery, he will find the -noblest sentiments of freedom and independence to predominate; he will -extol their enterprise, art, and ingenuity, and will reflect that nature -is wise, and that Providence in the distribution of its favors is not -capricious. Take another striking instance of this contradiction from -Morse's Geography. He says, that there are more slaves than free persons -in South Carolina, and mentions the mischievous influence of slavery on -their manners, which, he observes, by exempting them from the necessity -of labor, leads to luxury, dissipation, and extravagance, and savors too -much of a haughty, supercilious behavior; that the inhabitants want that -enterprise and perseverance which are necessary for the attainment of -the arts and sciences; that they have few motives to enterprise, and too -generally rest contented with barely knowledge enough to transact the -common affairs of life. Now, for the author's proofs: they are contained -in these words: - -"Many of the inhabitants spare no pains nor expense in giving the -highest polish of education to their children; literature has begun to -flourish since the peace; several flourishing academies and colleges -have been established; the ladies have an engaging softness and delicacy -in their manners; theatrical exhibitions have been prohibited by law; -gaming of all kinds is more discountenanced than in any of the Southern -States; all denominations of religion are on an equal footing; commerce -is flourishing; economy is becoming more fashionable, and science begins -to spread her salutary influence among the citizens." - -But was South Carolina, at the commencement of the war, with all her -slaves, backward in her resistance to Great Britain? View the conduct of -her citizens, their zeal and ardor in the cause of liberty; their labor -at Fort Sullivan. Are crimes more frequent in that country than in the -other States? Are there more executions? I believe there have been as -few as in any part of the Continent, and those which have taken place -have been generally of emigrant convicts, or fugitive wheel-barrow men; -he would be bold to assert that in no State on the Continent is there -more order, sobriety, and obedience to good government; more industry -and frugality; nor is there any trace of the influence of slavery on the -character of her citizens. - -The French, so far from curbing and cramping the African trade with -needless regulations, give large premiums upon every negro landed on -their islands; in some instances as much as two hundred livres per head. -Is that nation more debased than others? Are they not a polished people, -sensible of the rights of mankind, and actuated by proper sentiments of -humanity? The Spaniards encourage slavery; they are people of the nicest -honor, proverbially so. The Romans and Greeks had slaves, and are not -their glorious achievements held up as excitements to great and -magnanimous actions? Sparta teemed with slaves at the time of her -greatest fame as a valiant Republic. The absolute power of the -Lacedæmonians over the Helotes is frequently spoken of by the ancient -writers; they were not only the slaves of the Commonwealth, but of every -individual; they could not be set at liberty, neither could they be -sold; hence arose a saying, that a free man at Sparta was most a free -man, and a slave most a slave. - -The system of the Roman policy with regard to slavery was still more -severe. Slaves were not even under the protection of the laws; they were -considered as things, _inter res_. A master, merely from caprice, might -torture, dismember, and even murder his slave. If a slave did any damage -exceeding his value, he was delivered to the person injured, who did -with him what he pleased. Yet these slaves were of the same color as -their masters, and equal to them in mental faculties; many of them were -men of great learning, philosophers, poets, &c. Much had been said of -the cruel treatment of slaves in the West Indies and the Southern -States; with respect to the latter, he denied the fact from experience, -and accurate information, and believed in his conscience that the slaves -in South Carolina were a happier people than the lower order of whites -in many countries he had visited. With regard to the West Indies, _Lord -Rodney_ and _Admiral Barrington_ had both declared, that they had spent -some time in the West Indies, and that they had never heard of a negro -being cruelly treated; that they had often spoken of their happiness in -high terms, declaring that they should rejoice exceedingly if the -English day laborer was half as happy. Some have said that slavery is -unnecessary; so far from it, that several essential manufactures -depended on it. Indigo, cochineal, and various other dyeing materials, -which are the produce of the West Indies, could only be raised by -slaves; the great staple commodities of the South would be annihilated -without the labor of slaves. It is well known that when the African -slaves were brought to the coast for sale, it was customary to put to -death all those who were not sold; the abolition of the slave trade -would therefore cause the massacre of the people. - -The cruel mode of transportation was another motive to this abolition; -but was it to be presumed that the merchants would so far attend to -their own interests as to preserve the lives and the health of the -slaves on the passage. All voyages must be attended with -inconveniencies, and those from Africa to America not more than others. -As to their confinement on board, it was no more than necessary; as to -the smallness of space allotted them, it was more than was allotted to -soldiers in a camp; for the measurement of cubical air breathed by the -Africans, compared with that of soldiers in a camp, was in favor of the -former as thirty to seventeen; it was full as much as was allotted in -ships of war to seamen, who, by the laws of England, were frequently on -their return to their families, after a long and dangerous voyage, -seized by violence, hurried away by a press-gang, and forced on another -voyage more tedious and perilous than the first, to a hot and sickly -climate, where several hundreds of them were stowed away in the hold of -a vessel. In cases of disobedience, the captain had a right, for slight -offences, to inflict on them corporal punishment without the -intervention of a court-martial, and in other cases they are punishable -by very severe laws, executed by martial courts, established for that -purpose. The same may be observed of the soldiers, who were frequently -flogged severely for trifling offences; instances have been known of -their being put under the care of a surgeon, after receiving a small -part of the intended flagellation, to refit them for the residue. - -Having thus removed the force of the observations which have been -advanced against the toleration of slavery, by a misguided and -misinformed humanity, I shall only add, that I disapprove of the whole -of the report; because it either states some power sufficiently -expressed in the constitution, which is unnecessary, or it sets forth -some power which I am clear Congress do not possess. The concluding -paragraph is an extraordinary one. In what mode are the memorialists to -be informed of our humane dispositions? Are we to send a special -committee to inform them? Or is the Speaker to write them a letter, or -the Sergeant-at-Arms with the mace to wait on them? In short, Mr. -Chairman, the whole of this business has been wrong from beginning to -end, and as one false step generally leads to others, so has the hasty -commitment of these memorials involved us in all this confusion and -embarrassment. I hope, therefore, if any kind of report is agreed to, it -will be something like that proposed by my colleague. - -The committee rose, and reported progress. - - -FRIDAY, March 19. - -HUGH WILLIAMSON, a member from North Carolina, appeared and took his -seat. - - -MONDAY, March 22. - -_Subject of Slavery._ - -Mr. BOUDINOT said, although he most heartily approved of many of the -arguments and doctrines of his friend from Pennsylvania, yet he could -not go all lengths with him. He thought with him, that our time had been -taken up, and great labor had been used in arguments that nowise related -to the merits of the question before the committee, but he could not -agree that the clause in the constitution relating to the want of power -in Congress "to prohibit the importation of such persons, as any of the -States _now existing_ shall think proper to admit, prior to the year -1808, and authorizing a tax or duty on such importation, not exceeding -ten dollars for each person," did not extend to negro slaves. Candor -required that he should acknowledge, that this was the express design of -the constitution, and, therefore, Congress could not interfere in -prohibiting the importation, or promoting the emancipation of them, -prior to that period. He said he was well informed that the tax or duty -of ten dollars was provided instead of the five per cent. _ad valorem_, -and was so expressly understood by all parties in the Convention. That -therefore it was the interest and duty of Congress to impose this tax, -or it would not be doing justice to the States, or equalizing the duties -throughout the Union. If this was not done, merchants might bring their -whole capitals into this branch of trade, and save paying any duties -whatever. Mr. B. had hoped that the great lengths to which the gentleman -from Pennsylvania had carried the argument, would have convinced -gentlemen in the opposition of the propriety, if not the necessity of -the resolutions on the table. Is it not prudent now, while the design of -the framers of the constitution is well known, and while the best -information can be obtained, for Congress to declare their sense of it, -on points which the gentlemen say, involve their great and essential -interests, especially when the gentleman from Pennsylvania gives so -different a construction to it from what the gentleman from the -Southward thinks right? Is it not advantageous to the Southern States to -have an explicit declaration calming their fears and preventing -unnecessary jealousies on this subject? Can there be any foundation for -alarm, when Congress expressly declare, that they have no power of -interference prior to the year 1808? But gentlemen say they have been -charged with impropriety of conduct, in discovering so much warmth and -earnestness, on a subject with which their dearest interests are so -intimately connected--that all men are led by interest, and they are -justified in pursuing the same line of conduct. - -Mr. B. declared, for his own part, he never blamed them for standing -forth for what they conceived the true interests of their constituents; -but it was the manner in which this had been done, that he complained -of. On resolutions declaring that Congress had not power to prohibit the -importation of slaves into any State, or interfering in their -emancipation or internal government, long arguments had been used, and -much precious time had been spent, to prove the lawfulness of the -African trade in slaves; this, indeed, was an arduous task, in this day -of light and knowledge. An author, said to be of reputation, was brought -forward to prove the state of that unhappy country, but it turned out to -be in the fifteenth century; this could be of little avail. An hour was -taken up in reading the labors of a newspaper writer in the island of -Jamaica. This writer appeared wholly uninformed as to historic facts -relating to the miserable Africans, and as ignorant of the principal -arguments against the slave trade. It was necessary for him to deny the -authority of _Anthony Benezet_, who had published some pointed facts on -the subject. Mr. _Benezet_ was a man of the strictest integrity, and of -the best information--a man that was an honor to his country, and an -ornament to society. Mr. B. had been well acquainted with him, and spoke -from personal knowledge; he had examined into the facts from captains of -Guineamen, and a person who had lived twelve years in that country, and -he could say, with confidence, that _Mr. Benezet's_ account had been -generally confirmed. Not only the practice of ancient nations, and that -of all modern Europe, had been brought into view, but even the sacred -Scriptures had been quoted, to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is -true, that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred -years, and Mr. B. doubted not, but much the same arguments as had been -used on the present occasion, had been urged with great violence by the -King of Egypt, whose heart, it is expressly said, had been extremely -hardened, to show why he should not consent to let the children of -Israel go, who had now become absolutely necessary to him; but, said he, -gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed; they were -delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm, and it ought to be -remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance -is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. The New Testament has -afforded a number of texts to countenance this doctrine, in the -gentleman's opinion. One would have imagined that the uniform tenor of -the Gospel, that breathes a spirit of love and universal philanthropy to -our fellow-creatures--that commands our love to our neighbor to be -measured by our love to ourselves--that teaches us that whatsoever we -would that men should do to us to do so to them, would have prevented -this misapplication. Surely the gentleman overlooked the prophecy of St. -Peter, where he foretells, that, among other damnable heresies, "through -covetousness shall they, with feigned words, make merchandise of you." - -A quotation from a modern author, of great note in the philosophical -world, has been most ungenerously made use of by the newspaper writer -before referred to--I mean from the works of the famous _Mr. Paley_, -whose treatise on Moral Philosophy does him the greatest credit--a -single sentence or two is taken from this work, without regard to the -connection, to brand him with the charge of countenancing slavery. Mr. -B. then produced the book and read the passage, wherein it appeared that -_Mr. Paley_ laid down "the obligation of slavery to arise from crimes, -captivity, and debt;" that the slave trade on the coast of Africa is not -excused by these principles; that no questions are there asked relative -to the justice of the vender's title, but this is the least crime with -which this traffic is chargeable; the natives are excited to war, with -this the wickedness begins; the slaves torn away from parents, wives, -children, from their friends and companions, their fields and flocks, -their home and country, are transported to the European settlements in -America, with no other accommodation on ship-board than what is provided -for brutes. This is the second stage of cruelty from which they are -delivered, only to be placed, and that for life, in subjection to a -dominion and system of laws the most tyrannical that ever were tolerated -upon the face of the earth. But necessity is pretended, and after all it -has never been proved that it exists. _Mr. Paley_ then refers to the -present situation of the United States. "The great revolution in the -Western World," says he, "may probably conduce (and who knows but that -it was designed) to accelerate the fall of this abominable tyranny; and -now it is a season for reflecting whether a Legislature, which had so -long lent its assistance to the support of an institution replete with -human misery, was fit to be trusted with an empire the most extensive -that ever obtained in any age or quarter of the world." He then shows -that slavery was a part of the civil constitution of most countries when -Christianity appeared; and the reason that its precepts did not -expressly condemn or prohibit slavery was, because, soliciting admission -into all nations, it abstained from meddling with the civil institutions -of any. Then follows the passage quoted by the newspaper writer--"That -the discharging of slaves from all obligation to their masters, which is -the consequence of pronouncing slavery unlawful, would have no better -effect than to let loose one-half of mankind on the other. Slaves would -have been tempted to embrace a religion which asserted their right to -freedom; masters would hardly have been persuaded to consent to claims -founded on such authority; the most calamitous of all contests, a -_bellum servile_, might probably have ensued, to the reproach, if not -the extinction of the Christian name." He then asserts, that -emancipation should be gradual, and by the provisions of laws, and under -the protection of civil government. "Christianity can only operate as an -alterative. By the mild diffusion of its light and influence, the minds -of men are insensibly prepared to perceive and correct the enormities, -which folly, wickedness, or accident, have introduced into their public -establishments." Thus, proceeded Mr. B., justice is done to this worthy -philosopher and my own sentiments are more concisely and explicitly set -forth than I could have done without it. - -But when gentlemen attempt to justify this unnatural traffic, or to -prove the lawfulness of slavery, they should advert to the genius of our -Government, and the principles of the Revolution. By the declaration of -Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and necessity of taking up -arms, they say: "If it was possible for men who exercise their reason, -to believe that the Divine author of our existence intended a part of -the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power -over others, marked out by His infinite goodness and wisdom, as the -objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however -severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least -require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence that this -dreadful authority over them had been granted to that body." And by the -Declaration of Independence, in 1776, Congress declare: "We hold these -truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are -endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among -these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - -This, then, is the language of America in the day of distress. Mr. -Chairman, I would not be understood, to contend the right of Congress at -this time to prohibit the importation of slaves, whatever might have -been the principles of the Revolution or the genius of the Government; -by the present constitution we are clearly and positively restrained -till the year 1808, and I am sure that no gentleman in this committee -would have the most distant wish to wound this instrument of our -connection. - -But there is a wide difference between justifying this ungenerous -traffic, and supporting a claim to property, vested at the time of the -constitution, and guarantied thereby. Besides, it would be inhumanity -itself to turn these unhappy people loose to murder each other, or to -perish for the want of the necessaries of life. I never was an advocate -for so extravagant a conduct. - -Many arguments were pointed against the danger of our emancipating these -slaves, or even holding up an idea that we had a power so to do, and -much time has been taken up to disprove this right in Congress. As no -claim of this kind is contended for, and the resolutions already passed -expressly contradict it, I shall make no further observations on them. - -But the characters of the signers of these memorials are called in -question, as an argument against the adoption of the resolution on the -table. One of these memorials was signed by the Society of people called -Quakers: the other by Dr. Franklin, as President of a private Society in -Philadelphia. The indiscriminate abuse that has been thrown out against -Quakers, without distinction, has not comported with the honor or -dignity of this House. Not only their characters, but their very names -have been called upon, and private anecdotes, relating to individuals, -been mentioned on the floor. Many of the Quakers I have long lived in -the habits of friendship with, and can testify to the respectability of -their characters and the regularity of their lives. Their conduct in the -late war has been arraigned, and they have been condemned in the lump. I -have known many of them during the war, and impartial justice requires -it from me, to give the committee some official information on the -subject. I had the honor of serving the United States at the -commencement of the war, as Commissary General of prisoners. Congress -not being able to afford them supplies, those unhappy men in this town -were reduced to the very depths of distress, without food or raiment, -without blankets or firing, they suffered every thing that human nature -could bear. In this situation many of the Quakers of this city exercised -such humanity towards them as did honor to human nature. The miserable -prisoner not only felt the happy effects of their exertions in his -favor, but participated in their money, their food, and clothing. Nay, -such were the jealousies created by this conduct, in the British army -here, that an armed force entered the house of one of them, seized his -books, and though a man of great property, and large commercial -dealings, on finding that he had loaned large sums of money to our -distressed prisoners, he was turned out of their lines, and with his -family was a refugee during the whole of the war afterwards, separated -from his business and property. - -To whom was the care of our prisoners in Philadelphia committed? To a -Quaker: and I have been witness to the just tribute of gratitude and -thankfulness paid by great numbers of our unhappy fellow-citizens to -that gentleman for his kindness and humanity. And is this indiscriminate -charge, without the least respect to characters, a decent or a just -return for a conduct like this? Where is the denomination amongst us, -that did not furnish opposers to our glorious Revolution? Were not -hundreds of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and almost of every other -denomination, among our enemies? What denominations formed the thousands -of new levies, that endeavored to deluge our country in blood? On the -other hand, were not a Greene and a Mifflin furnished from the Society -of the Quakers? - -In short, I rejoice to say, that our cause was not carried on by -fanaticism or religious zeal, but a general struggle for the rights of -human nature. Then why all this abuse of this particular sect, without -discrimination? Can any solid argument against the resolution on the -table arise from a conduct of this kind? I am at a loss to know what -other argument has been used to show the impropriety of the resolution -before you. It goes to declare the power of Congress to prohibit -foreigners from fitting out vessels in our ports, to supply foreigners -with slaves from Africa. For my part, I think it a prudent, a humane, -and a constitutional resolution. It will render further interference on -this subject, perhaps, unnecessary, when it is known that the power of -Congress extends to remedy the evil. They will hardly venture to risk a -voyage that may be ruined before its being finished. - -The gentleman last up (Mr. SMITH) said, that it was now acknowledged, -that one of the memorials had asked something contrary to the -constitution. I have never acknowledged this. The language is, that -Congress would go to "the very verge of the constitution," to accomplish -the business; but there is no request to exceed it. - -The character of the celebrated signer of the last memorial, Dr. -Franklin, has been touched upon. The firmness of his mind has been -suspected. An ingenious parable of his has been read to the committee, -but its application totally mistaken. If the Supreme Being has borne -with the unhappy subjects of our consideration, not for one hundred, but -for thousands of years, in their own native land; has provided them -with climate, soil, and social comforts, in which they rejoice; must we -be discontented, and suppose, by adding to their misery, we can add to -their happiness? - - -TUESDAY, March 23. - -_Subject of Slavery._ - -It was then moved, that the House should take up the report of the -Committee of the Whole on the report of the committee to whom were -referred the memorials of the people called Quakers, and of the -Pennsylvania Society for promoting the abolition of slavery. - -This motion was opposed by Mr. JACKSON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. BURKE, and Mr. -BLAND; they severally observed, that the discussion of the subject has -already excited a spirit of dissension among the members of the House, -and that every principle of policy and concern for the dignity of the -House, and the peace and tranquillity of the United States, concur to -show the propriety of dropping the subject, and letting it sleep where -it is. On the other hand, Mr. VINING, Mr. HARTLEY, and Mr. PAGE, -observed, that there was the same propriety in taking up the subject at -the present moment, and bringing it to a conclusion, as there was for -first taking it up; that it has been so fully discussed it cannot be -supposed gentlemen will go over the same ground again; it may soon be -determined; to pass it over will be unprecedented, and will leave the -public mind in the same state of uncertainty from which so much danger -is apprehended. The motion for taking up the report was warmly contested -in a lengthy debate, and finally passed in the affirmative, by a -majority of one. Whereupon, on motion, that the said report of the -committee, and also the report of the Committee of the whole House, of -amendments to said report, be inserted on the Journal, it was resolved -in the affirmative, 29 votes to 25. The yeas and nays were as follows: - -Those who voted in the affirmative, were, - - Messrs. Boudinot, Brown, Cadwalader, Contee, Floyd, Foster, - Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Griffin, Hartley, Hathorn, Heister, - Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, Leonard, Madison, Muhlenberg, - Parker, Partridge, Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Sherman, - Sylvester, Sinnickson, Vining, and Wynkoop. - -Those who voted in the negative, were, - - Messrs. Ames, Baldwin, Benson, Bland, Burke, Carroll, - Coles, Gale, Grout, Jackson, Livermore, Mathews, Moore, - Page, Van Rensselaer, Smith, (of Maryland,) Smith, (of - South Carolina,) Stone, Sturges, Sumter, Thatcher, - Trumbull, Tucker, White, and Williamson. - -The said reports are as follow: - -_Report of the Special Committee._ - - The committee to whom were referred sundry memorials from - the people called Quakers, and also, a memorial from the - Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of - Slavery, submit the following report: - - That from the nature of the matters contained in these - memorials, they were induced to examine the powers vested - in Congress, under the present constitution, relating to - the Abolition of Slavery, and are clearly of opinion, - - _First._ That the General Government is expressly - restrained from prohibiting the importation of such persons - "as any of the States now existing shall think proper to - admit, until the year one thousand eight hundred and - eight." - - _Secondly._ That Congress, by a fair construction of the - constitution, are equally restrained from interfering in - the emancipation of slaves, who already are, or who may, - within the period mentioned, be imported into, or born - within, any of the said States. - - _Thirdly._ That Congress have no authority to interfere in - the internal regulations of particular States, relative to - the instructions of slaves in the principles of morality - and religion; to their comfortable clothing, - accommodations, and subsistence; to the regulation of their - marriages, and the prevention of the violation of the - rights thereof, or to the separation of children from their - parents; to a comfortable provision in cases of sickness, - age, or infirmity; or to the seizure, transportation, or - sale of free negroes; but have the fullest confidence in - the wisdom and humanity of the Legislatures of the several - States, that they will revise their laws from time to time, - when necessary, and promote the objects mentioned in the - memorials, and every other measure that may tend to the - happiness of slaves. - - _Fourthly._ That, nevertheless, Congress have authority, if - they shall think it necessary, to lay at any time a tax or - duty, not exceeding ten dollars for each person of any - description, the importation of whom shall be by any of the - States admitted as aforesaid. - - _Fifthly._ That Congress have authority to interdict, or - (so far as it is or may be carried on by citizens of the - United States, for supplying foreigners) to regulate the - African trade, and to make provision for the humane - treatment of slaves, in all cases while on their passage to - the United States, or to foreign ports, so far as respects - the citizens of the United States. - - _Sixthly._ That Congress have also authority to prohibit - foreigners from fitting out vessels in any port of the - United States, for transporting persons from Africa to any - foreign port. - - _Seventhly._ That the memorialists be informed, that in all - cases to which the authority of Congress extends, they will - exercise it for the humane objects of the memorialists, so - far as they can be promoted on the principles of justice, - humanity, and good policy. - - -_Report of the Committee of the whole House._ - -The Committee of the whole House, to whom was committed the report of -the committee on memorials of the people called Quakers, and of the -Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, report the -following amendments: - -Strike out the first clause, together with the recital thereto, and in -lieu thereof insert, "That the migration or importation of such persons -as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be -prohibited by Congress, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and -eight." - -Strike out the second and third clauses, and in lieu thereof insert, -"That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of -slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States; it -remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations -therein, which humanity and true policy may require." - - Strike out the fourth and fifth clauses, and in lieu - thereof insert, "That Congress have authority to restrain - the citizens of the United States from carrying on the - African trade, for the purpose of supplying foreigners with - slaves, and of providing, by proper regulations, for the - humane treatment, during their passage, of slaves imported - by the said citizens into the States admitting such - importation." - - Strike out the seventh clause.[36] - - -WEDNESDAY, March 24. - -JOHN BAPTIST ASHE, another member from North Carolina, appeared and took -his seat. - - -THURSDAY, April 22. - -_Benjamin Franklin._ - -Mr. MADISON rose and addressed the House as follows: - -Mr. SPEAKER: As we have been informed, not only through the channel of -the newspapers, but by a more direct communication, of the decease of an -illustrious character, whose native genius has rendered distinguished -services to the cause of science and of mankind in general; and whose -patriotic exertions have contributed in a high degree to the -independence and prosperity of this country in particular; the occasion -seems to call upon us to pay some tribute to his memory expressive of -the tender veneration his country feels for such distinguished merit. I -therefore move the following resolution: - - "The House being informed of the decease of BENJAMIN - FRANKLIN, a citizen whose native genius was not more an - ornament to human nature than his various exertions of it - have been precious to science, to freedom, and to his - country, do resolve, as a mark of the veneration due to his - memory, that the members wear the customary badge of - mourning for one month." - -Which was agreed to. - - -THURSDAY, June 24. - -_Officers of the Navy._ - -On motion of Mr. HARTLEY, the report of the committee on the memorial of -the Officers of the Navy was taken into consideration by the committee -of the Whole: the report is as follows: - - The committee report, that they do not find any reason - sufficient to justify the difference that has been made in - the compensation of the officers of the army and of the - navy of the United States, and are, therefore, of opinion, - that a law ought to pass for granting five years' pay, - equal to the commutation of half-pay, and also a bounty of - land, to the officers of the navy, upon the same - principles, and in the same manner, as has been granted to - the officers of the army of the United States. - - -Mr. SHERMAN observed, that, by the memorial and the report, it appears -that the memorialists do not pretend to have any claim on the public by -virtue of any existing resolutions of Congress. The subject is very -fully before the committee; it lies with Congress, therefore, to -determine what is proper to be done under such circumstances. The -application stands entirely on the basis of its own merits, and he could -conceive of no difficulty in deciding on it. - -Mr. STONE observed, that it is true there is no claim by virtue of any -antecedent contract or promise; nor was commutation, he believed, -promised to the officers of the army. In this view, the officers of the -navy stand exactly upon the same footing with those of the army. He then -entered into a consideration of the merits, services, and sufferings, of -the officers of the navy; and from these and other considerations, urged -the justice of their claims, as he could see no reason for the -difference that had been made. - -Mr. HUNTINGTON said, but a little consideration was necessary to -recollect the reason of the difference between the officers of the navy -and army. The officers of the army were first in the public service; the -navy was not formed until some time after hostilities commenced. The -officers of the navy were put on the same footing, in respect to pay, as -the army; the former had some advantages in point of rank, and they were -entitled to a part of their captures. He then gave an account of the -origin of commutation--which was granted on account of the peculiar -exigencies of affairs at that time. During the time this business was in -agitation there were very few navy officers in the public service, and -no application was made by them for half-pay or commutation. They were -ashore, and many of them had retired to civil life. The reason, -therefore, why they are not included in the commutation was, there did -not appear at the time any necessity for the measure, as the United -States did not then want a navy; whereas the public exigencies with -respect to the army were such as rendered the resolution for the -commutation to them absolutely necessary. He, however, thought the claim -of the navy officers founded on justice; and justice, said he, is the -strongest plea that can be urged in support of any demand whatever. - -Mr. HARTLEY supported the memorial. He gave the officers great credit -for their bravery, services, and attachment to the cause of their -country. He dilated on the hardships and sufferings they endured; he -adverted to the advantages they derived from captures, which he stated -to be very inconsiderable. Their claims, said he, appear to me to be -founded on the the strictest and most impartial justice; he hoped, -therefore, that the report would be accepted, and a committee appointed -to bring in a bill accordingly. - -Mr. BALDWIN, who was one of the select committee which made the report, -stated some of the reasons which influenced the committee; also the -considerations which were supposed to have led to the distinction -between the navy and army, in respect to commutation--one of which was, -that the officers of the navy were in the line of their particular -calling, and which they were enabled to pursue with perhaps greater -advantages than they ever did before. Other circumstances were mentioned -by him, tending to invalidate their claim. - -Mr. SHERMAN observed, that if this report is adopted, it will open a -very wide door indeed to applications for half pay or commutation. He -then gave a history of the origin of commutation or half pay, which, he -said, was considered at the time as a measure of necessity, and not of -justice; and has been very much complained of by several of the States. -The above necessity did not exist with respect to the officers of the -navy, as, at the time, there were but two or three ships in service. -From this state of facts, he inferred that no precedent could be drawn -in favor of extending the commutation to the officers of the navy. He -thought that their case was entitled to the consideration of the -Legislature, on the principles of equity; he should, therefore, be for -the committee's making full inquiry into the circumstances of the whole -business, and making such provision as justice should point out; but he -was against the report in its present latitude. - -Mr. BURKE replied to the observations of Mr. BALDWIN, respecting the -officers of the navy being in the way of their profession; and, from the -nature of the service, he showed that there was little weight in the -observation. Their circumstances were very much altered for the worse, -and they were now left in a very destitute situation; whereas the -officers of the army are enjoying posts and places of honor and profit. -Their silence on the subject has been mentioned. He observed that their -dispersed situation had been the principal reason of their not coming -forward with their petition before. Mr. B. observed, that the officers -of the navy were not treated like other prisoners when they were taken; -they suffered peculiarly, not as prisoners of war, but were treated like -rebels, whose crimes were of the blackest nature. - -Mr. SENEY said he was, and always had been an advocate for the claims of -the officers of the navy: he thought their memorial founded on the -strictest justice. He introduced the representation to Congress of the -"illustrious" Commander-in-chief of the late army, on the subject of -half pay and pensions, which he read. He then entered into a comparative -view of the relative merits of the army and navy; and said it was well -known that many of them made as great sacrifices as the other -description of officers. With respect to prize money, he doubted whether -they had ever been benefited by it. In some instances, where they had -expected the most, they had, through the failure of agents, received -only a certificate, worth about five shillings in the pound; and that -received only for a part of what was due. He replied to the several -objections which had been offered, and concluded by saying it would be -unjust and impolitic not to grant their claims. - -Mr. SEDGWICK observed, that no gentleman in the committee had deeper -impressions made upon him, by the grateful recollection of the merits -and services of those brave men to whom America owed its freedom, than -himself. Yet, under the present circumstances of the country, he thought -it a duty he owed the people who had confided their interest to his -management, to examine, on principle, the demands which were made upon -the Government for pecuniary grants. The applicants in the present -instance, did not place their demand on the ground of contract. For the -contract, under which the services had been rendered, had been complied -with according to the specified terms, and performed to the extent of -the powers of the Government, in the same manner as other claims of a -similar nature had been satisfied. It was further, he said, to be -noticed, that during the time those services were performing, no -dissatisfaction had been manifested by the present memorialists. From -these observations, then, it clearly followed, that, in point of -contract, the claims of the officers of the navy were in all respects -similar to those of every other individual in the community, who had -received satisfaction by the same means. It would then become gentlemen -to reflect on the consequences which would result from the establishment -of a precedent, which would go to the invalidation of all the final -settlements which had been made. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, gentlemen had supported the claim of the applicants -from a supposed analogy of their circumstances to those of the gentlemen -of the army. He said there was the difference which arose from the -circumstance already mentioned. The commutation was founded in contract; -the present claim was destitute of that support. There were also other -material circumstances which very widely differed in the two cases. The -officers of the army were called from pursuits by which they were -enabled to support and provide for their families, and to abandon their -prospects of establishment by the business to which they had been -educated. On the other hand, the gentlemen of the navy were promised -handsome wages for continuing in that business to which they had been -educated, and for which they were best, if not only qualified; and this, -too, at a time when, by the destruction of our commerce, many of them -otherwise must have wanted employment. They had likewise additional -encouragement from a participation in the avails of prizes, while the -army derived no emolument from any such source. That the report of the -Select Committee being unsupported either on the ground of contract, or -the principles on which the grant to the officers of the army was made, -the application was merely to the generosity of the Government. He said -it was a principle, from which he professed himself determined never to -depart, not to dissipate that property in idle or visionary projects of -generosity, which is necessary to the performance of justice. That the -arduous scenes in which we had been engaged, had imposed the necessity -of practising a rigid economy. That the conduct which we might, under -present embarrassments, pursue, it would be improper hereafter to -consider as a precedent. That it would, indeed, be a noble and generous -sentiment to compensate all those losses which our friends had sustained -by the war. But he asked, if such would not be a vain attempt? Can we -compensate all the desolation of fire and wanton depredation, provoked -from the enemy by the patriotism of particular districts in this -country? Can we retribute the sufferings which have been caused by the -depreciation of our currency? Or the ruin of thousands and thousands by -our delays of payment, and the consequent depreciation of our -securities? Can we administer to the relief of the vast number of widows -and orphans, who, from those circumstances, have been reduced from -affluence to want and beggary? Remember, too, he said, the sages, who, -in the hour of danger, watched over your security; and who, in their -best days, abstracted themselves from every lucrative pursuit, and -devoted all their time and talents to the service of their country. -These patriots, now in the evening of life, are the most meritorious -objects of the generosity of the Government, yet they would nobly -disdain to ask, or to receive the aid of the Government, however -necessary to them, until efficient provision was made for the -performance of those contracts, which we are under the most solemn -obligation, if in our power, to fulfil. And he concluded by observing, -that when the improving resources of our country should enable the -Government generously to compensate the sufferings of those several -descriptions of persons, then, and not till then, might we extend to the -memorialists the relief which they now sought for. - -Mr. JACKSON supported the claim of the officers. He observed, that if -the country had not derived so extensive advantages from the exertions -of the navy, it must be imputed to peculiar circumstances, and not to -any deficiency in the officers and sailors; so far as their abilities -could be exerted, no men distinguished themselves more. Had ours been a -maritime instead of an agricultural country, the importance of a navy -would have struck us more forcibly. Their claims he considered as -founded in the strictest justice, and he had no doubt that if they had -applied to the old Congress they would have granted their request; but -restrained by a consideration of the embarrassments of the United -States, they did not obtrude their petitions upon them; and now this -very circumstance is urged as a reason for not granting their petition. -In his opinion, this did them great honor; since that time, they have -been scattered through all parts of the Union. This and other -circumstances have delayed their application to this time, but have not -lessened the equity of it. He added many other observations, and -concluded by saying that he was fully in favor of the report. - - -FRIDAY, June 25. - -_Foreign Intercourse._ - -The House proceeded to consider the amendments last proposed on the part -of the Senate to the bill providing the means of intercourse between the -United States and foreign nations. The first amendment was to strike out -thirty thousand, and to insert forty thousand dollars. - -It was moved that the House should agree to this amendment; this motion -was opposed. - -It was said that the committee had exceeded their commission in -proposing this alteration in the bill, as both Houses had agreed in the -sum of thirty thousand dollars. It was further said that more than one -Minister Plenipotentiary was unnecessary; that the Court of Great -Britain had sent only a Consul to this country; and that, from the -present appearances, no advantages could be expected to arise from -sending a Minister, equivalent to the expense; the necessity contended -for is merely conjectural; and by that rule, the Ministers -Plenipotentiary may be increased, and one sent to Spain and another to -Portugal. If only one Minister is sent to Europe, the first sum will be -sufficient; with respect to the Court of London, a Chargé des Affaires -will answer every purpose. - -In support of the motion, it was urged that the President of the United -States is, by the constitution, vested with the power of appointing such -foreign officers as he may think necessary, and it must devolve upon the -Legislature to make provision for defraying the expense. The Committee -of Conference did not rely on their own judgment, they consulted the -Secretary of Foreign Affairs. His opinion was, that in the present -situation of this country with respect to foreign nations, two Ministers -and two Chargés des Affaires were necessary; a Minister at the Court of -Versailles is generally conceded to be requisite. The peculiar situation -of this country with respect to the posts, the Northern and Eastern -frontiers, and the state of our commerce in respect to Great Britain, -can scarcely leave a doubt of the necessity and importance of sending a -Minister to that country. This being the state of affairs, a less sum -than that proposed, it is demonstrably evident, will not be found -adequate. - -The question on concurring in this amendment was carried in the -affirmative. - -The other amendments were agreed to, with amendments. - - -TUESDAY, July 6. - -_Seat of Government._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill sent -from the Senate for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of -the Government of the United States, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair. - -Mr. SHERMAN.--As this bill respects the permanent residence of the -Government, which is an important subject, it ought to be a matter of -inquiry, whether the place proposed is the real centre of population and -territory or not? He thought it too far southward. He moved, therefore, -that the Potomac should be struck out, and a district to include the -town of Baltimore be inserted. - -Mr. BURKE seconded this motion. - -Mr. LEE desired the gentleman to inform the committee where he meant the -temporary residence should be, provided this motion should be carried. - -Mr. SHERMAN said, he had no objection to making Philadelphia the -temporary residence, as soon as it was convenient. He then mentioned -several particulars which would render it inconvenient to go there at -present. - -Mr. HUNTINGTON said, that the only reason for removing, which he had -ever heard was, that this place is not so central. If there is any force -in the reasoning, he wished not to go to a place less central. He -adverted to the mode of conveyance to this place, generally adopted by -members to get to the seat of Government. He supposed that the present -centre was somewhere between Philadelphia and Baltimore; but the place -contemplated is very much removed from the centre, more than three -hundred miles west. With respect to centrality, he said that it is not -an idea which predominates in regard to any other country of which he -knew any thing respecting the geography; other and various important -considerations operated in fixing the seat of Government. - -Mr. WHITE observed, that if this House was alone to be consulted, on the -principle of accommodation, Baltimore might answer; but when it is -considered that this bill originated in the other House, who have an -equal voice with us in determining the question, and in which this place -has been repeatedly rejected, it is evident, that, if the clause is -struck out the bill will be lost. He then controverted the calculations -of the gentleman last speaking, and stated the difference of travel -between the Southern and Northern distances, which is made to be as four -and one-half to one; but he said, that so far as respected himself, he -should make no difficulty on that account; but the accommodation of the -citizens who may have business at the seat of Government is a -consideration of very great importance. With respect to the uncentral -situation of the seat of Government in other countries, this arose from -the mere whims of the sovereigns of those kingdoms; but modern policy -has obliged the people of European countries, (I refer particularly to -Great Britain,) to fix the seat of Government near the centre of trade. -It is the commercial importance of the city of London which makes it the -seat of Government; and what is the consequence? London and Westminster, -though they united send only six members to Parliament, have a greater -influence on the measures of Government than the whole empire besides. -This is a situation in which we never wish to see this country placed. -He concluded by observing, that if this amendment is agreed to, the bill -will be lost, and we shall be without either a temporary or permanent -residence. - -Mr. LEE, after a few introductory observations, entered into a -consideration of the relative interests of the Southern, Middle, and -Northern States. He interspersed a variety of reflections, tending to -conciliate and blend those different interests--and to disseminate the -sentiments of union and concord. He alluded particularly to the great -object of funding the debts of the United States; the seat of Government -will concentrate the public paper. Hence he inferred the necessity of a -situation from whence all parts of the Union may be equally benefited. -From these considerations, he deduced the necessity of placing the -Government in a central situation. He observed, that while the present -position continued to be the seat of Government, the agriculture of the -States to the eastward is invigorated and encouraged, while that to the -southward is languishing and expiring. He then showed the fatal tendency -of this preponderating encouragement to those parts of the country, -already considered as the strongest parts of the Union--and from the -natural operation of these principles he inferred that the interest of -the Southern States must be eventually swallowed up. The decision of the -Senate, said he, affords a most favorable opportunity to manifest that -magnanimity of soul, which shall embrace, upon an extensive, liberal -system, the best interest of the great whole. This cannot be done while -the present unequal situation of the seat of Government of the United -States continues. Nations have their passions as well as individuals. He -drew an alarming picture of the consequences to be apprehended from -disunion, ambition and rivalship. He then gave a pleasing sketch of the -happy effects to be derived from a national, generous, and equal -attention to the Southern and Northern interests. Will gentlemen, said -he, blast this prospect by rejecting the bill? I trust they will not. - -He then entered into the merits of the question. The States of Delaware, -Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, which contribute more than -one-half to the revenue, and which have the only rival claim to the -permanent seat of Government, are satisfied with the arrangement in the -bill. That Philadelphia is the nearest centre of the present wealth and -population of the United States, the gentlemen from New York themselves -will confess; the Potomac will become the nearest centre for a permanent -residence probably by the period proposed--to oppose this, therefore, -will be acting from merely local motives. - -The gentleman moves to insert Baltimore. Mr. L. insisted that Baltimore -is as far South as the place proposed, besides being exposed by its -frontier position on the sea; we are not confined, said he, to a -particular spot on the Potomac; we may fix on a place as far North as -the gentleman from Connecticut wishes. I consider the motion, therefore, -calculated to destroy the bill, and ought to be opposed by every one who -is in favor of a Southern situation. - -This State has no pretensions to the permanent residence. It is true the -citizens of this place have put themselves to a great expense to -accommodate the Government, and are entitled to much praise for their -exertions; but he wished to take up the subject on national ground, and -to have it decided on principles which apply to the best interests of -the whole. He then referred to a map of the Potomac, and the adjacent -country, which lay on the table, and which had been sent from the -Executive of the State of Virginia. He referred also to other papers and -documents. - -Mr. BURKE said, he wished that the whole business of the temporary and -permanent residence might now be settled. He exculpated the members who -are in favor of Baltimore from all design to defeat the present bill. He -referred to some observations which had been made on the conduct of the -members of the States south of Virginia, and said, that they had -consulted the interest of the whole. One reason why he was in favor of -the motion was, because he preferred Baltimore to Conococheague. He -thought a populous city better than building a palace in the woods. -Another reason was, that there was no political necessity existing for -removing the Government from New York to Philadelphia. He said that the -measure would excite the most turbulent passions in the minds of the -citizens. It is unjust to the people of this city, to remove from this -place till the expense they have incurred is repaid them. It is a breach -of honesty and justice. It is injustice to the State--to the whole -nation. He entered into a consideration of their sacrifices and -services. He thought it a very extraordinary measure indeed. It is -calculated, said he, to arrest the funding system, and to throw every -thing into confusion. If the bill is passed in its present form, -Congress will never leave Philadelphia; for the Commissioners to be -appointed will incur no penalty for a neglect of doing their duty. This -is a most essential defect in the bill, and there are other defects in -it. He spoke in handsome terms of the State of Pennsylvania. He said he -had as high an opinion of that State, as any man whatever, but he was -afraid of their influence; and that State was the last in which he would -ever consent the permanent seat of Government should be. He then -adverted to the influence of the members from that State, who by their -political management, had raised a storm in the United States. [Here Mr. -BURKE was called to order.] After a short interruption, he proceeded, -and said a Quaker State was a bad neighborhood for the South -Carolinians. Here he adverted to the Quaker business last winter. He -objected to Philadelphia, also, on account of there being no gallery in -the House proposed for the accommodation of Congress--an open gallery he -considered as a very important check to the Legislature. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--The gentleman from Virginia has observed, that the object -of the amendment is to defeat the bill. He has also mentioned the States -which are most particularly interested in the question. Mr. L. said, the -State of New York might have been considered. He wished the motion might -succeed, because he thought that it would conduce to the peace of the -Union. He objected to the place proposed for the permanent residence; by -the bill it is conceded that the place is not, at present, a suitable -position. By what magic can it be made to appear it will be more proper -at the end of ten years? What reason can be given why those parts of the -Union should not populate which are at a distance from the Potomac, in -proportion to those parts in the vicinity of that place? I presume none -can be assigned. Why, then, is a period of ten years to expire, previous -to going there? The reason is plain. The people would not now consent to -have the Government dragged to so remote a part of the United States. He -then adverted to the funding business, and other important matters which -remain to be decided on, and very strongly intimated that these -questions were to be determined agreeable to the fate of this bill. He -showed, from a variety of particulars, that Philadelphia would become -the permanent residence. He then adverted particularly to the several -parts of the bill. The first was respecting the place where it is -proposed to erect the public buildings. He said, they could not be -erected within the time mentioned, and showed the various difficulties -which would attend the whole business. He then stated the advantages of -Baltimore, and said that that place would have obtained in the Senate, -if the Maryland Senators would have voted for it. He concluded by -observing, that, as no necessity exists for removing the temporary -residence, he hoped that Congress would sit down contented where they -are. - -Mr. BLOODWORTH observed, that as the funding bill had been alluded to, -he could wish that the objection from that quarter might be taken out of -the way. He moved that the committee should rise, in order to take up -the ways and means. - -Mr. STONE.--All we seem to differ about is whether Baltimore or the -Potomac shall be the seat of the Government; and if this was all, the -Delegates of that State might fold their arms and sit down contented; -but the State of Maryland has been placed in the situation of Tantalus. -He then stated how the gentlemen had formerly voted, who now appear in -favor of Baltimore. Had the bill come down from the Senate with -Baltimore inserted, instead of Potomac, he should have had no difficulty -in determining how to act; but he conceived, that if the amendment now -proposed should take place, nothing would be done, and the business will -be left in a very inauspicious state. From this and other -considerations, he was resolved not to be drawn off from his present -determination by any motion, amendment, or modification of the bill -whatever. With respect to himself, he had no election between the town -of Baltimore and the Potomac; yet, as a Marylander, he would, if he saw -a prospect of success, vote for the town of Baltimore; but as it -respects the United States, he should vote for the Potomac; and on this -idea he was willing to make some sacrifices. He considered the subject -as one of the most painful and disagreeable that could be agitated, and -he wished to have the business finally and unalterably fixed. - -Mr. SENEY also considered this as an unhappy question to come before the -House at this time. The State of Maryland is as much divided on the -subject as the United States appeared to be; a great rivalship subsists -between the Potomac and Susquehanna rivers, and he doubted not but that -when the question was ultimately decided, it would be either on the one -or the other of those rivers. He agreed with Mr. LEE, that Pennsylvania, -Maryland and Virginia, were the only States who could make any -reasonable pretensions for the seat of Government; but a majority of -voices from these States had been against the Potomac. Pennsylvania and -Maryland, he observed, had given the preference to the Susquehanna. Mr. -S. then noticed some transactions of the Legislature of Maryland, which -he said clearly evinced their determination to support the pretensions -of the Susquehanna. Maryland certainly had an equal right with -Pennsylvania and Virginia to have her interests consulted. The interests -of Maryland, it appeared, were now to be sacrificed to those two -adjoining States. And however flattering it may seem to Maryland to fix -the seat of Government on her side of the Potomac, the real advantages -were in a great measure nugatory, as it would be but a very small -portion of that State that could reap any benefit therefrom. The real -advantages would undoubtedly result to Pennsylvania and Virginia. It -appeared somewhat extraordinary to him, that gentlemen should be willing -to confine the residence to a particular spot, previous to their -removing to a permanent residence. Why is it necessary to fix upon -Philadelphia for ten years? Surely this is putting the Government in a -very ineligible situation, for it is by no means improbable that many -serious and important occurrences might render a removal highly -expedient, perhaps unavoidable. Besides, after the Government shall have -remained ten years in Philadelphia, the probability of quitting it for -the Potomac appeared to be very slight indeed. For though it was -understood by the bill that the offices were to be removed to the -Potomac, yet if a majority in either House were opposed to going there, -Congress would remain at Philadelphia, and they would be obliged to -repeal the bill from necessity. - -Mr. SCOTT said, he should not notice many things which had been offered -on the subject. He would only observe, that from the town of Baltimore -there is no water conveyance to the interior country; but from the -proposed site on the Potomac, there are two hundred miles navigation -directly into the heart of the country. Nor is Baltimore more northerly -than the position contemplated. A connection with the Western country is -of the utmost consequence to the peace and union of the United States, -let the gentlemen from the sea-coast say what they will. - -Mr. MADISON.--In order to decide this question rightly, we ought to -compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two places as they -relate to the good of the United States. Now, I will defy any gentleman, -however sanguine he may be with respect to Baltimore, to point out any -substantial advantage that is not common to the Potomac; and I defy them -to disprove that there are not several important advantages belonging to -the Potomac, which do not appertain to Baltimore. The committee have had -ample information with respect to the Northern and Southern positions of -the two places. In point of salubrity of air, without disparaging the -pretensions of Baltimore, the Potomac is at least equally favored in -that respect. In regard to centrality of situation, the Potomac has -undoubtedly the advantage. In respect to security from invasion, I aver -the Potomac has the advantage also. With relation to the Western -country, there is not a shadow of comparison. If we should go as far -South as Baltimore, why not an equal distance south-west to the Potomac? -Those who are acquainted with the country on the Potomac, and that in -the neighborhood of Baltimore, do not hesitate to give the preference to -the Potomac. It is true, that Baltimore has respectable resources; her -rapid growth is a clear proof of it; but look at the resources of the -Potomac; the great range of rich country that borders on it, and see if -these are not advantages that must, in a short time, produce a -commercial town. Sir, a period might be named, not exceeding ten years, -within which the town of Baltimore obtained the greater part of its -increase and consequence; a period of ten years will produce the same -effects on the Potomac, because the same causes exist; and when, -superadded to this, the residence of Government shall be there, there -can be no doubt but that there will be every accommodation that can be -desired. - -It is said, that before the ten years expire, a repeal of the act may -take place, and thus Congress be kept at Philadelphia. But what more can -we do than pass a law for the purpose? It is not in our power to guard -against a repeal. Our acts are not like those of the Medes and Persians, -unalterable. A repeal is a thing against which no provision can be made. -If that is an objection, it holds good against any law that can be -passed. If those States that may have a superiority in Congress at a -future day will pay no respect to the acts of their predecessors, or to -the public good, there is no power to compel them. - -But I flatter myself that some respect will be paid to the public -interest, and to the plighted faith of the Government. As to centrality, -the best evidence we have at this time in favor of the Potomac is the -different travelling of the members; and this, sir, proves incontestably -that the proposed place on the Potomac is near the centre. If any -arguments could be brought against it, it is its being too far to the -northward. For the mileage south of the Potomac is twelve thousand seven -hundred and eighty-two miles, to the north of it twelve thousand four -hundred and twenty-two miles. If to this Rhode Island be added, it will -not be more than equal. If the bill once passes, I am not under any -apprehensions of a repeal; but if danger of repeal does exist, it is of -that kind against which we cannot guard. Sir, we should calculate on -accepting the bill as it now stands; we ought not to risk it by making -any amendment. We have it now in our power to procure a Southern -position. The opportunity may not again speedily present itself. We know -the various and jealous interests that exist on this subject. We should -hazard nothing. If the Potomac is struck out, are you sure of getting -Baltimore? May no other place be proposed? Instead of Baltimore, is it -not probable we may have Susquehanna inserted, perhaps the Delaware? -Make any amendment, sir, and the bill will go back to the Senate. Are we -sure that it will come back into our possession again? By amending, we -give up a certainty for an uncertainty. In my opinion, we shall act -wisely, if we accept the bill as it now stands, and I beg leave to press -it on gentlemen not to consent to any alteration, lest it be wholly -defeated and the prospect of obtaining a Southern position vanish for -ever. - -Mr. GERRY said, he rose with greater reluctance on this than he ever did -on any former occasion; and it is because it appears pretty evident the -advocates of the bill are sure of a majority, and are determined not to -change their minds let what arguments will be offered on the subject. -The business of establishing the permanent residence is contrary to the -sentiments of a majority of the members of this House, and of the -Senate, as they have both negatived a bill for this purpose the present -session. It is to be regretted that it has ever been brought forward, -for it is very evident that it has had a very pernicious influence on -the great business of funding the public debt. He then mentioned the -former removals of Congress, which had never been complained of, as the -public business was never neglected. He said, that if the present bill -is carried into execution, a very great uneasiness will ensue; for the -measures of Congress, and not their residence, are the objects of -concern to the people. Those States who think that they shall be -injured, it cannot be expected will then acquiesce. He then gave an -account of the process of this measure the last session. The travelling -has been mentioned. This, he said, could not be considered as an -argument in favor of the bill, for the expense is not paid by particular -States, it comes out of the common treasury. He asserted that the -accessibility to New York is better than to the Potomac. He contended -that the risk by land is greater than by water. He stated the advantages -that the Southern members derived from coming to the northward, while, -on the other hand, is there, asked he, any thing to balance the risk and -difficulties which the Northern members must encounter in such a -Southern situation? He said it was highly unreasonable to fix the seat -of Government in such a position as to have nine States out of thirteen -to the northward of the place. He adverted to the sacrifices which the -Northern States are ready to make in being willing to go so far south as -Baltimore. He contended that the explicit consent of the Eastern States -ought to be obtained, before they are dragged still further south. He -ridiculed the idea of fixing the Government at Conococheague. He did not -think there was any serious intention of ever going to this Indian -place. He considered the whole business as a mere manoeuvre. Baltimore -holds out the only prospect of a permanent seat of Government. He -recapitulated the account which before had been given. From this he -adverted to the general expectation of the public with respect to the -Government's tarrying here till the permanent seat was established. He -particularized the expenses that had been incurred by the citizens, and -for which they merited great honor. He said, it had been promised to New -York that this place should be the temporary residence of Congress, and -on this engagement they came into an unconditional adoption of the -constitution. Should this bill pass, what can it be denominated but a -delusion, a deception, sanctioned by Congress itself? He remarked on the -several observations offered by Messrs. MADISON, LEE, STONE, and SCOTT. - -Mr. VINING.--When I find arguments made use of to inflame the minds of -gentlemen against the members of this House, I think it my duty to -notice such observations. Attempts are made to hold up, in an odious -point of light, the members of Pennsylvania. Sir, it is a fact, which -your Journals will justify, that the members from Pennsylvania voted the -last session against Philadelphia. I trust that none of those -observations will have the least influence on the mind of one single -individual. We are sent here to do the public business, and I trust that -our constituents have not sent men that are to be deterred from doing -their duty by such insidious insinuations, such ill-founded suggestions -of deceiving and deluding the citizens of this place. Mr. V. added some -more strictures on Mr. GERRY's observations, and then entered largely -into the merits of the question. He supported the bill on general -principles, and noticed the several objections that had been made by -different members. He imputed the embarrassments of the public business -to the assumption, and not to the subject of residence. - -Mr. CLYMER made a few remarks on the observations of Mr. BURKE, which -were not distinctly heard. - -The committee rose, and reported progress - - -WEDNESDAY, July 7. - -_Seat of Government._ - -The House again resolved itself into a committee on the bill for -establishing the temporary and permanent seat of Government, Mr. -BOUDINOT in the chair. - -Mr. BURKE made some remarks on the observations of Mr. VINING, in which -he exculpated himself from all design to excite mobs and tumults among -the citizens of New York, as had been insinuated by that gentleman. He -declared that he believed the citizens incapable of behaving so much out -of character. For himself, he disclaimed any such idea. He further -observed, that the delegates from Pennsylvania were fully competent to -advocate the interests of their particular State; they had given -abundant evidence of their abilities; they therefore did not need the -assistance of the gentleman from Delaware. - -Mr. HARTLEY observed, that it was the fault of the New York Senators -last year that they did not vote for a four years' residence in their -own city, and the permanent one at Germantown, which they could then -have carried. He defended himself and his colleagues from any charge of -want of generosity, and also defended the character of the Quakers. The -gentleman (Mr. BURKE) is not acquainted with the people called Quakers -or their history, or he would entertain different sentiments concerning -them. Under the famous William Penn, they settled the former Province of -Pennsylvania, between the years 1680 and 1690, near the close of the -last century; and such was their justice, wisdom, moderation and good -policy, that they gained reputation abroad. Men emigrated from the -European world to this land of freedom. They preserved peace at home; -for it was not until the year 1753, in a war, fomented on the borders of -another Province, that an inhabitant of Pennsylvania was killed by the -hands of an Indian. The Quakers had always been remarkable for their -moral laws, for the plainness of their manners, and their benevolence. -Nay, should the gentleman go to Philadelphia, he will find that these -people will treat him as well as any other society. They merit not the -abuse which has been so frequently thrown upon them. - -Mr. BLOODWORTH thought that if the New York Senators had acted wrong, -yet the people should not be blamed for it. The proposition of Mr. -BURKE was so reasonable and just, that he said he could not avoid -approving of it. - -Mr. LAWRENCE defended the New York Senators, and explained the reasons -of their former conduct, which, when it was known, he believed, would -rather merit the approbation of the people. He then proceeded to remark -upon the conduct of New York during the war and since. Her revenue had -been thrown into the Treasury of the United States, and every succor -that could possibly be expected was received from her. Upon the whole, -he wished the dispute of residence could be left to the decision of the -three Northern and three Southern States; and he appealed to the House, -as politicians and men, for the justice of the case. - -Mr. WADSWORTH rose next. He was proceeding when he was called to order. -After some altercation on the question of order, - -Mr. PAGE spoke to the merits of the question, in which he introduced -several conciliatory observations, and then added, as to the place for -the permanent residence of Congress, any unprejudiced disinterested man -in the world, looking over the map of the United States, would put his -finger on the district pointed out in the bill, and say, "This is your -place, sir." As to going to Philadelphia, it is not my wish to go and -stay there as proposed in the bill; but I say, with my colleague, (Mr. -MADISON,) that I consent to go there to get into a more central -position, and to be fairly on our way to the permanent residence on the -Potomac. As to our present situation, the citizens of New York -themselves acknowledge, nay, even the member himself who has called me -to order, acknowledges that it has no pretensions to be the permanent -residence; and it must be confessed that in proportion as it is improper -for the permanent residence, it must be improper for the temporary -residence. The continuance of Congress here has been acquiesced in by -the Southern States, merely on the supposition that a removal to the -permanent residence would take place sooner if Congress sat here than at -some other place more central. The wise and virtuous citizens of New -York know this, and cannot resist the removal. - -Sir, I was not apprehensive that the observations made by gentlemen -yesterday could excite an improper resentment in their minds. There is -not a city in the world in which I would sooner trust myself and -Congress than in New York; for it is superior to any place I know for -the orderly and decent behavior of its inhabitants; but, sir, when the -member behind me, (Mr. BURKE,) who alluded to me when he was last up, -said that they were injured and robbed by Congress, I told him, as a -friend, that had I been in the chair, I should have called him to order. - -I confess I was shocked to hear that gentleman's declarations repeated -by a member on the other side of the House, who is remarkable for his -coolness and his peculiar attention to every sentiment offered in debate -(Mr. GERRY.) I took the liberty, when the House adjourned, to tell that -gentleman, perhaps too freely, what I thought respecting those -declarations; if I gave him, or the member behind me any offence, I ask -their pardon; but I still think I should have done my duty had I taken -notice of the impropriety of their declarations in my place in the -House, as a friend to order and freedom of debate. - -Mr. LIVERMORE said, that the motion for striking out the Potomac and -inserting Baltimore is so reasonable in itself, that I cannot conceive -there should be one person opposed to it. He observed, that Baltimore is -as far south as the Potomac; the members will then have as far to go to -one as the other. There is a river, it is said, which runs two hundred -miles into the country as far as the Allegany mountains; what advantage -can this be to Congress? I can conceive none, except that it may be to -send the acts of Congress by water to the foot of the Allegany -mountains. He thought that the centre of population was the only true -centre. It is not pretended that the Potomac is at present this centre; -but it is said that it will in time become the centre of population. -What reason is there for any such supposition? The place in which this -favorite spot is has been as long settled as any other part of the -Continent, but the population has not kept pace with many other parts of -the United States; it is therefore entirely chimerical and problematical -whether it ever will become the centre of population. He then enlarged -on the superior advantages of a populous city for the seat of -Government, and concluded by repeating that the amendment is so -reasonable in itself that he hoped every member of the committee would -vote for it. - -Mr. GERRY.--In discussing this subject yesterday, I made use of such -arguments as appeared to me pertinent to the occasion. But, sir, those -arguments have had the most extraordinary construction put on them by -the gentleman from Delaware; they have been represented as tending to -excite mobs, and to raise insurrections in this city. Sir, I insist that -the observations I made had a direct contrary tendency. I said that the -bill contained those malignant principles which had a direct tendency to -agitate and inflame the minds of the citizens of America. Those -principles I was endeavoring to expose, and to show what must be their -obvious effects. Is this exciting mobs? Directly the reverse, in my -opinion. I never had any such idea; and as to the citizens of New York, -I have too just a sense of their wisdom and good judgment to harbor such -a sentiment. He then adverted to the constitution, to show that there -could be no danger of an insurrection or rebellion against the -Government. Congress is vested with a sufficient power to protect -themselves from every insult whatever; they have a right to call forth -the whole militia of the Union for their protection. [Here Mr. G. was -called to order, and some altercation ensuing, Mr. G. said he would say -nothing farther on this particular topic.] He then proceeded to state -his arguments against the Potomac, in the course of which he noticed -some observations which had fallen from Messrs. VINING and CLYMER. One -of the gentlemen had said that "Pennsylvania had a right to the seat of -the General Government." This he denied; he said no State in the Union -could pretend to such a right; Congress alone has a right to determine -where the seat of Government shall be. He entered into a lengthy -discussion on the merits of the Potomac, and among other observations -asserted that taking so southern a situation would amount to a -disqualification of many of the Northern members, who would forego their -election rather than attend the National Legislature on that river. - -Mr. VINING read a report of a committee of the late Congress, respecting -two seats of Government, in which report Georgetown was mentioned. Mr. -GERRY, being one of this committee, rose to explain. - -Mr. SEDGWICK, in a speech of considerable length, stated his objections -to so southern a situation as either Baltimore or the Potomac, and said -that he should have the unhappiness, he feared, of dividing on the -question from his colleagues. - -Mr. SHERMAN offered some calculations respecting distances, and made -Baltimore to be the nearest to the centre of any other place that had -been mentioned. - -Mr. WHITE said, he had no idea of altering the sentiments of a single -member of the committee; he did not expect the gentleman from New -Hampshire would agree with him. The gentleman from Massachusetts had -said something about the Government going into the wilderness; he said -it was true that there was not at present every accommodation which -gentlemen might wish; but there is every probability that there will be. -He said that such improvements were making in the navigation of the -Potomac as will render it a place affording every accommodation whether -Congress go there or not. He instanced several places on the Potomac -which were at this day sufficiently populous to accommodate Congress. He -then adverted to situations, and observed that a line from the Atlantic, -east and west, to the extreme point mentioned in the bill, will -intersect the State of New Jersey, include the whole of Delaware and -Maryland, and will throw thirty-one members of the representation in the -southern division of the United States. He then observed, that after the -present ferment is subsided, this position will be considered as a -permanent bond of union; and the Eastern States will find their most -essential interests promoted by the measure. He adverted to the trade of -Massachusetts, which he said was greater to Virginia than to the whole -Union besides; the Southern States will be cordial in promoting their -shipping and advancing their interests, when they observe that the -principles of justice influence them on this great national question. - -He then remarked on the observation of Mr. SHERMAN respecting the -repealing of the law, and reprobated the principles on which such -observations are founded; he remarked on the attraction of populous -cities, and trusted that other ideas would prevail in this country than -what influenced in fixing the seats of Government in Europe. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, he was in favor of the motion, as -the only one which held out a probability of ever fixing on a southern -residence. He enlarged on the difficulty and improbability of ever -removing from Philadelphia. He said that it was evident, from the -present representation, and what is most likely it will be ten years -hence, that Congress could not be removed from that place. He then -stated the number of the members to the southward and northward of -Philadelphia, and observed that the Congress that would exist at the -expiration of ten years may think entirely different from the present, -and will not think themselves bound by the law; but if they should, what -can the measure be denominated but legislating for the next century? A -system proposed the last session, which combined a much greater interest -than the present, failed; and what reason have we to suppose that this -bill will ever be carried into execution? He said no gentleman pretends -that the place proposed is now ready for the reception of the -Government; and even if the buildings were now erected, is there any -gentleman who would give his vote for going there? He would agree to a -place in the neighborhood of Baltimore, and this he supposed was the -furthest southern position the gentlemen from the eastward will ever -consent to. From all the views he could take of the measure, he was -fully convinced that the Potomac was tacked to the bill merely to carry -Philadelphia; he wished gentlemen seriously to consider the consequences -of passing a law which would so intimately and inauspiciously affect the -interests of so many people. - -Mr. MADISON objected to the motion for inserting Baltimore, as it would -be risking the bill with a place which has already been repeatedly -rejected by the Senate; he religiously believed, he said, that if -Baltimore was inserted the bill would never pass the Senate; and the -fate of the bill which the gentleman mentions ought to be a serious -warning to us never to risk this with an amendment; the instance, -therefore, produced by the gentleman, is very much against his own -argument. - -The question being put for striking out the word "Potomac," and -inserting "Baltimore," it was negatived--37 to 23. - - -THURSDAY, July 8. - -_General Post Office._ - -The House proceeded to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate to -the bill to establish the Post Office and post roads within the United -States. - -The first amendment was to strike out the first and second sections, -which specified and established the several roads, and to insert a -clause empowering the Postmaster General, under the direction of the -President of the United States, to establish them. - -A concurrence in this amendment was opposed by Messrs. BLOODWORTH, -WHITE, STEELE, LIVERMORE, HARTLEY, and GERRY. - -It was said, that it was delegating the power of legislation to the -Supreme Executive in one of the most important points that could be -mentioned. The revenue also will centre in the hands of the Executive; -and in process of time this revenue may be converted into an engine -destructive to the liberties of the United States; for as it is a -perpetual law, and as the time may, and probably will come, when the -Executive may be corrupt, as the revenue increases, the officers of the -department will be increased, and we do not know to what extent the -consequences may be carried. It is unconstitutional, as that expressly -reserves the power of establishing Post Offices and post roads to the -Legislature. It was further observed, it would be throwing a burden upon -the President which he cannot execute with any convenience to himself, -and, from his situation, with satisfaction to the people. The -representatives of the people, who come from all parts of the United -States, must be supposed to have a more competent knowledge of the -proper places for establishing post roads than the Postmaster General. - -A concurrence was advocated by Mr. PARTRIDGE, and Mr. SEDGWICK. - -It was said, that upon an accurate calculation it was found that the -roads proposed by the bill as it passed the House, are so numerous, that -so far from affording a revenue, they will prove a great burden to the -United States. The circumstances of the country are continually -changing; the seats of Government in the several States are removed from -their ancient situations to one hundred miles' distance; to accommodate -the people in such cases, old routes must be discontinued and new roads -opened, which will be a perpetual source of legislation and unnecessary -expense. This business was left to the Postmaster General by the late -Congress, and very few complaints were heard; the Postmaster General, by -his office, must be the most competent judge, as the business will be a -principal object of his attention, and actual surveys of the roads will -be made by his assistants in all parts of the United States; but if the -responsibility of this officer is divided into sixty-five parts, every -one of which has its own particular convenience in view, it must appear -evident that all responsibility is entirely dissipated. As to the -unconstitutionality, it was said that the bill proposes no more in the -present instance than is provided for in the other Executive -Departments; the principles of conducting the business are established -by the House; the mode of carrying those principles into execution is -left with the Executive, and this of necessity is done in almost every -case whatever. The House adjourned without coming to a vote. - - -FRIDAY, July 9. - -_Seat of Government._ - -The House proceeded to consider the bill sent from the Senate for the -establishing the temporary and permanent seat of Government of the -United States. - -Mr. BOUDINOT, after expressing his disapprobation of the bill generally, -moved that the Potomac should be struck out and the Delaware inserted, -and called for the yeas and nays; after some debate, this motion was -negatived, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Floyd, Foster, - Gerry, Goodhue, Grout, Huntington, Hathorn, Leonard, - Lawrence, Livermore, Partridge, Rensselaer, Trumbull, - Schureman, Sherman, Sylvester, Sturges, Sedgwick, - Wadsworth--22. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke, - Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Contee, Fitzsimons, - Gilman, Heister, Hartley, Jackson, Gale, Griffin, P. - Muhlenberg, Madison, Mathews, Moore, Page, Parker, Lee, - Steele, Scott, Sinnickson, Stone, Sevier, Seney, Smith, (of - Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Sumter, Thatcher, - Tucker, Vining, White, Williamson, Wynkoop--39. - -Mr. AMES moved to strike out Potomac and insert Germantown, as the -permanent residence. Yeas 22, nays 39. - -Variation--Mr. GILMAN, yea; Mr. TRUMBULL, nay. - -Mr. SMITH (of Maryland) moved to strike out Potomac and insert between -the Potomac and Susquehanna. Yeas 25, nays 36. - -Variation--Messrs. SMITH, (of Maryland,) SMITH, (of South Carolina,) -TRUMBULL, and THATCHER, yea; Mr. SHERMAN, nay. - -Mr. LAWRENCE moved to strike out Potomac and insert Baltimore. - - YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Floyd, Foster, - Gerry, Goodhue, Grout, Hathorn, Huntington, Lawrence, - Leonard, Livermore, Rensselaer, Partridge, Schureman, - Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Smith, (of Maryland,) Smith, (of - South Carolina,) Sylvester, Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, - Wadsworth--26. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, - Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Contee, Fitzsimons, - Gilman, Gale, Griffin, Hartley, Heister, Jackson, Lee, - Madison, Mathews, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, Scott, - Sevier, Sumter, Sinnickson, Steele, Stone, Tucker, Vining, - White, Williamson, Wynkoop--34. - -A motion was made to adjourn; which was also negatived. - -The bill was then read the third time; and on the question, Shall the -bill pass? the yeas and nays were as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, - Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Contee, Fitzsimons, - Gale, Griffin, Hartley, Heister, Jackson, Lee, Madison, - Mathews, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, Scott, Sevier, - Sinnickson, Steele, Stone, Sumter, Vining, White, - Williamson, Wynkoop--32. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Burke, Floyd, - Foster, Gerry, Goodhue, Gilman, Grout, Hathorn, Huntington, - Lawrence, Leonard, Livermore, Partridge, Rensselaer, - Schureman, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Sylvester, Smith, (of - Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Sturges, Thatcher, - Trumbull, Tucker, Wadsworth--29.[37] - - - -THURSDAY, August 12. - -Agreeably to the concurrent vote of the two Houses, an adjournment took -place this day--to meet in the city of Philadelphia on the first Monday -in December next. - -Previous to the adjournment, a unanimous vote passed both Houses, -returning thanks to the Corporation of this City for the elegant and -convenient accommodations furnished the Congress of the United States. - -Adjourned, _sine die_. - - - - -FIRST CONGRESS.--THIRD SESSION. - -HELD AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 6, 1790 - -PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE. - - -MONDAY, December 6, 1790. - -The Senate assembled: present, - -JOHN ADAMS, Vice President of the United States, and President of the -Senate. - -From New Hampshire, JOHN LANGDON and PAINE WINGATE. - -From Massachusetts, TRISTRAM DALTON. - -From Connecticut, OLIVER ELLSWORTH. - -From New York, RUFUS KING. - -From Pennsylvania, WILLIAM MACLAY and ROBERT MORRIS. - -From Delaware, RICHARD BASSETT. - -From North Carolina, SAMUEL JOHNSTON and BENJAMIN HAWKINS. - -From South Carolina, PIERCE BUTLER and RALPH IZARD. - -From Georgia, WILLIAM FEW. - -PHILEMON DICKINSON, from the State of New Jersey, produced his -credentials and took his seat in the Senate, in the place of Governor -PATERSON. - -JAMES MONROE, appointed by the Legislature of the State of Virginia, in -the place of JOHN WALKER, who was appointed by the Executive of the said -State in the room of WILLIAM GRAYSON, deceased, produced his -credentials, and took his seat in the Senate. - -The VICE PRESIDENT administered the oath required by law to Mr. -DICKINSON and Mr. MONROE, respectively. - -A letter was read from WILLIAM PATERSON, Governor of the State of New -Jersey, communicating the resignation of his appointment to be a Senator -of the United States. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that a -quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to business. - - -TUESDAY, December 7. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a -quorum of that body is assembled and ready to proceed to business. - -Messrs. LANGDON and MORRIS were appointed a committee, on the part of -the Senate, to inform the President of the United States that a quorum -of the two Houses is assembled, and will be ready, in the Senate -Chamber, at such time as he may appoint, to receive any communication -which he may be pleased to make. - -Mr. LANGDON, in the course of the day, reported that the President would -meet the two Houses, as proposed, to-morrow, at 12 o'clock. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 8. - -JONATHAN ELMER, from New Jersey; CALEB STRONG, from Massachusetts; and -GEORGE READ, from the State of Delaware; attended. - -A letter from the Commissioners of the city and county of Philadelphia -was received, offering to Congress the county court-house for their -accommodation during their residence in Philadelphia. - -The members of the House of Representatives having taken their seats, -the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES entered the Senate Chamber, and -addressed both Houses as follows: - - _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of - Representatives:_ - - In meeting you again, I feel much satisfaction in being - able to repeat my congratulations on the favorable - prospects which continue to distinguish our public affairs. - The abundant fruits of another year have blessed our - country with plenty, and with the means of a flourishing - commerce. The progress of public credit is witnessed by a - considerable rise of American stock abroad as well as at - home; and the revenues allotted for this and other national - purposes have been productive beyond the calculations by - which they were regulated. This latter circumstance is the - more pleasing, as it is not only a proof of the fertility - of our resources, but as it assures us of a further - increase of the national respectability and credit; and, - let me add, as it bears an honorable testimony to the - patriotism and integrity of the mercantile and marine part - of our citizens. The punctuality of the former in - discharging their engagements has been exemplary. - - In conforming to the powers vested in me by acts of the - last session, a loan of three millions of florins, towards - which some provisional measures had previously taken place, - has been completed in Holland. As well the celerity with - which it has been filled, as the nature of the terms, - (considering the more than ordinary demand for borrowing, - created by the situation of Europe,) give a reasonable hope - that the further execution of those powers may proceed - with advantage and success. The Secretary of the Treasury - has my directions to communicate such further particulars - as may be requisite for more precise information. - - Since your last sessions I have received communications by - which it appears that the district of Kentucky, at present - a part of Virginia, has concurred in certain propositions - contained in a law of that State; in consequence of which - the district is to become a distinct member of the Union, - in case the requisite sanction of Congress be added. For - this sanction application is now made. I shall cause the - papers on this very important transaction to be laid before - you. The liberality and harmony with which it has been - conducted will be found to do great honor to both the - parties; and, the sentiments of warm attachment to the - Union and its present Government, expressed by our - fellow-citizens of Kentucky, cannot fail to add an - affectionate concern for their particular welfare to the - great national impressions under which you will decide on - the case submitted to you. - - It has been heretofore known to Congress, that frequent - incursions have been made on our frontier settlements by - certain banditti of Indians from the north-west side of the - Ohio. These, with some of the tribes dwelling on and near - the Wabash, have of late been particularly active in their - depredations; and, being emboldened by the impunity of - their crimes, and aided by such parts of the neighboring - tribes as could be seduced to join in their hostilities, or - afford them a retreat for their prisoners and plunder, they - have, instead of listening to the humane invitations and - overtures made on the part of the United States, renewed - their violences with fresh alacrity, and greater effect. - The lives of a number of valuable citizens have thus been - sacrificed, and some of them under circumstances peculiarly - shocking, whilst others have been carried into a deplorable - captivity. - - These aggravated provocations rendered it essential to the - safety of the Western settlements, that the aggressors - should be made sensible that the Government of the Union is - not less capable of punishing their crimes, than it is - disposed to respect their rights and reward their - attachments. As this object could not be effected by - defensive measures, it became necessary to put in force the - act which empowers the President to call out the militia - for the protection of the frontiers; and I have, - accordingly, authorized an expedition, in which the regular - troops in that quarter are combined with such drafts of - militia as were deemed sufficient: the event of the measure - is yet unknown to me. The Secretary of War is directed to - lay before you a statement of the information on which it - is founded, as well as an estimate of the expense with - which it will be attended. - - The disturbed situation of Europe, and particularly the - critical posture of the great maritime Powers, whilst it - ought to make us the more thankful for the general peace - and security enjoyed by the United States, reminds us, at - the same time, of the circumspection with which it becomes - us to preserve these blessings. It requires, also, that we - should not overlook the tendency of a war, and even of - preparations for a war, among the nations most concerned in - active commerce with this country, to abridge the means, - and thereby at least to enhance the price of transporting - its valuable productions to their proper markets. I - recommend it to your serious reflection how far, and in - what mode, it may be expedient to guard against - embarrassments from these contingencies, by such - encouragements to our own navigation as will render our - commerce and agriculture less dependent on foreign bottoms, - which may fail us in the very moments most interesting to - both of these great objects. Our fisheries, and the - transportation of our own produce, offer us abundant means - for guarding ourselves against this evil. - - Your attention seems to be not less due to that particular - branch of our trade which belongs to the Mediterranean. So - many circumstances unite in rendering the present state of - it distressful to us, that you will not think any - deliberations misemployed which may lead to its relief and - protection. - - The laws you have already passed for the establishment of a - Judiciary system have opened the doors of justice to all - description of persons. You will consider, in your wisdom, - whether improvements in that system may yet be made; and, - particularly, whether a uniform process of execution, on - sentences issuing from the Federal courts, be not desirable - through all the States. - - The patronage of our commerce, of our merchants, and - seamen, has called for the appointment of Consuls in - foreign countries. It seems expedient, to regulate by law, - the exercise of that jurisdiction, and those functions - which are permitted them, either by express convention, or - by a friendly indulgence, in the places of their residence. - The Consular Convention, too, with His Most Christian - Majesty, has stipulated, in certain cases, the aid of the - national authority to his Consuls established here. Some - legislative provision is requisite to carry these - stipulations into full effect. - - The establishment of the Militia, of a Mint, of Standards - of Weights and Measures, of the Post Office and post roads, - are subjects which (I presume) you will resume of course, - and which are abundantly urged by their own importance. - - _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_ - - The sufficiency of the revenues you have established for - the objects to which they are appropriated, leaves no doubt - that the residuary provisions will be commensurate to the - other objects for which the public faith stands now - pledged. Allow me, moreover, to hope that it will be a - favorite policy with you not merely to secure a payment of - the debt funded, but as far and as fast as the growing - resources of the country will permit, to exonerate it of - the principle itself. The appropriation you have made of - the Western lands explains your dispositions on this - subject, and I am persuaded the sooner that valuable fund - can be made to contribute, along with other means, to the - actual reduction of the public debt, the more salutary will - the measure be to every public interest, as well as the - more satisfactory to our constituents. - - _Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:_ - - In pursuing the various and weighty business of the present - session, I indulge the fullest persuasion that your - consultations will be equally marked with wisdom, and - animated by the love of your country. In whatever belongs - to my duty, you shall have all the co-operation which an - undiminished zeal for its welfare can inspire. It will be - happy for us both, and our best reward, if, by a successful - administration of our respective trusts, we can make the - established Government more and more instrumental in - promoting the good of our fellow-citizens, and more and - more the object of their attachment and confidence. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _December_ 8, 1790. - -The President of the United States having retired, and the two Houses -being separated, Messrs. ELLSWORTH, KING, and IZARD, were appointed a -committee to prepare and report the draft of an Address to the -PRESIDENT, in answer to his Speech to both Houses. - - THURSDAY, December 9. - - _To the President, and the Honorable the Congress of the - United States of America._ - - The memorial of the Representatives of the people of - Kentucky, in Convention assembled, pursuant to an act of - the Legislature of Virginia, passed the 18th December, - 1789, entitled "An act concerning the erection of the - District of Kentucky into an independent State," humbly - showeth: - - That the inhabitants of this country are warmly devoted to - the American Union, and as firmly attached to the present - happy establishment of the Federal Government, as any of - the citizens of the United States. - - That, migrating from hence, they have, with great hazard - and difficulty, effected their present settlements. The - hope of increasing numbers could alone have supported the - early adventurers under those arduous exertions. They have - the satisfaction to find that hope verified. At this day, - the population and strength of this country render it fully - able, in the opinion of your memorialists, to form and - support an efficient domestic Government. - - The inconveniences resulting from its local situation, as a - part of Virginia, at first but little felt, have for some - time been objects of their most serious attention; which - occasioned application to the Legislature of Virginia for - redress. - - Here your memorialists would acknowledge, with peculiar - pleasure, the benevolence of Virginia in permitting them to - remove the evils arising from that source, by assuming upon - themselves a state of independence. - - This they have thought expedient to do, on the terms and - conditions stipulated in the above recited act; and fixed - on the first day of June, 1792, as the period when the said - independence shall commence. - - It now remains with the President and the Congress of the - United States to sanction these proceedings, by an act of - their honorable Legislature, prior to the first day of - November, 1791, for the purpose of receiving into the - Federal Union the people of Kentucky, by the name of the - State of Kentucky. - - Should this determination of your memorialists meet the - approbation of the General Government, they have to call a - Convention, to form a Constitution, subsequent to the act - of Congress, and prior to the day fixed for the - independence of this country. - - When your memorialists reflect upon the present - comprehensive system of Federal Government, and when they - also recollect the determination of a former Congress on - this subject, they are left without a doubt that the object - of their wishes will be accomplished. - - And your memorialists, as in duty bound, shall for ever - pray. - - GEORGE MUTER, _President_. - Attest, THOMAS TODD, _Clerk of the Con._ - -A letter from the Secretary of War was communicated to the VICE -PRESIDENT, enclosing sundry papers referred to in the President's Speech -to both Houses of Congress, on the 8th instant, which, being read, were -ordered to lie for consideration. - - -FRIDAY, _December_ 10. - -A letter from Monsieur Beniere, President of the Commonalty of Paris, -addressed to the PRESIDENT and members of Congress of the United States, -with twenty-six copies of a Civic Eulogy on BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, -pronounced the 21st day of July, 1790, in the name of the Commonalty of -Paris, by Monsieur L'Abbé Fauchet, was delivered to the Senate, by Mr. -Lear, Secretary to the President of the United States. - -Read, and - -_Ordered_, That the letter and copies of the Eulogy be sent to the House -of Representatives. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that -they have, on their part, appointed the Rev. Dr. BLAIR one of the -Chaplains of the present Congress. - -Mr. ELLSWORTH, from the committee appointed to prepare and report the -draft of an Address to the President of the United States, reported -accordingly; and, the report being amended, was adopted, as followeth: - - _To the President of the United States of America._ - - We receive, sir, with particular satisfaction, the - communications contained in your speech, which confirm to - us the progressive state of the public credit, and afford, - at the same time, a new proof of the solidity of the - foundation on which it rests; and we cheerfully join in the - acknowledgment which is due to the probity and patriotism - of the mercantile and marine part of our fellow-citizens, - whose enlightened attachment to the principles of good - government is not less conspicuous in this than it has been - in other important respects. - - In confidence that every constitutional preliminary has - been observed, we assure you of our disposition to concur, - in giving the requisite sanction to the admission of - Kentucky as a distinct member of the Union; in doing which, - we shall anticipate the happy effects to be expected from - the sentiments of attachment towards the Union, and its - present Government, which have been expressed by the - patriotic inhabitants of that district. - - While we regret that the continuance and increase of the - hostilities and depredations which have distressed our - north-western frontiers, should have rendered offensive - measures necessary, we feel an entire confidence in the - sufficiency of the motives which have produced them, and in - the wisdom of the dispositions which have been concerted, - in pursuance of the powers vested in you; and, whatever may - have been the event, we shall cheerfully concur in the - provisions which the expedition, that has been undertaken, - may require on the part of the Legislature, and in any - other which the future peace and safety of our frontier - settlements may call for. - - The critical posture of the European Powers will engage a - due portion of our attention, and we shall be ready to - adopt any measures which a prudent circumspection may - suggest, for the preservation of the blessings of peace. - The navigation and the fisheries of the United States are - objects too interesting not to inspire a disposition to - promote them, by all the means which shall appear to us - consistent with their natural progress and permanent - prosperity. - - Impressed with the importance of a free intercourse with - the Mediterranean, we shall not think any deliberations - misemployed which may conduce to the adoption of proper - measures for removing the impediments that obstruct it. - - The improvement of the Judiciary system, and the other - important objects to which you have pointed our attention, - will not fail to engage the consideration they respectively - merit. - - In the course of our deliberations upon every subject we - shall rely upon that co-operation which an undiminished - zeal, and incessant anxiety for the public welfare, on your - part, so thoroughly ensure; and, as it is our anxious - desire, so it shall be our constant endeavor, to render the - established Government more and more instrumental in - promoting the good of our fellow-citizens, and more and - more the object of their attachment and confidence. - -_Ordered_, That the Address to the President of the United States, in -answer to his Speech, be presented by the Vice President, attended by -the Senate, and that the committee which reported the Address wait on -the President, and desire to be informed at what time and place he will -receive the same. - - -MONDAY, December 13. - -WILLIAM S. JOHNSON, from Connecticut, and PHILIP SCHUYLER, from New -York, attended. - -Mr. ELLSWORTH, from the committee appointed on the 10th, to wait on the -President of the United States, reported: - -That it would be agreeable to the President to receive the Address of -the Senate, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, on -Monday next, at 12 o'clock. - -Whereupon, - -The Senate waited upon the President of the United States at his own -house, and the Vice President, in their name, communicated to him the -Address agreed to on the 10th instant; to which the President of the -United States was pleased to make the following reply: - - GENTLEMEN: These assurances of favorable attention to the - subjects I have recommended, and of entire confidence in my - views, make the impression on me which I ought to feel. I - thank you for them both, and shall continue to rely much - for the success of all our measures for the public good, on - the aid they will receive from the wisdom and integrity of - your councils. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - -The Senate returned to the Senate Chamber. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 15. - -JOSEPH STANTON, junior, from Rhode Island, attended. - - -MONDAY, January 10. - -JOHN HENRY, from Maryland, attended. - - -MONDAY, January 17. - -JAMES GUNN, from Georgia, attended. - - -FRIDAY, January 21. - -CHARLES CARROLL, from the State of Maryland, attended. - - -MONDAY, February 14. - -The Senate on Executive business. The following Message from the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was under consideration: - -_Gentlemen of the Senate:_ - - Conceiving that in the possible event of a refusal of - justice on the part of Great Britain, we should stand less - committed should it be made to a private rather than a - public person, I employed Mr. Gouverneur Morris, who was on - the spot, and without giving him any definite character, to - enter informally into the conferences before mentioned. For - your more particular information, I lay before you the - instructions I gave him, and those parts of his - communications wherein the British ministers appear either - in conversation or by letter. These are two letters from - the Duke of Leeds to Mr. Morris, and three letters of Mr. - Morris, giving an account of two conferences with the Duke - of Leeds, and one with him, and Mr. Pitt. The sum of these - is, that they declare, without scruple, they do not mean to - fulfil what remains of the Treaty of Peace to be fulfilled - on their part, (by which we are to understand the delivery - of the posts and payment for property carried off,) till - performance on our part, and compensation where the delay - has rendered the performance now impracticable; that on the - subject of a treaty of commerce they avoided direct - answers, so as to satisfy Mr. Morris they did not mean to - enter into one unless it could be extended to a treaty of - alliance offensive and defensive, or unless in the event of - a rupture with Spain. - - As to the sending a Minister here, they made excuses at the - first conference, seemed disposed to it in the second, and - in the last express an intention of so doing. - - Their views being thus sufficiently ascertained, I have - directed Mr. Morris to discontinue his communications with - them. GEO. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _Feb._ 14, 1791. - -_Ordered_, That this Message lie for consideration. - - -TUESDAY, February 15. - -RICHARD HENRY LEE, from Virginia, attended. - -No business of importance before the Senate to-day. - - -THURSDAY EVENING, March 3. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that -they, having completed the Legislative business before them, intend -shortly to adjourn without day. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that -the Senate, having completed the Legislative business before them, are -about to adjourn; and having acquainted the VICE PRESIDENT that he had -delivered the message, - -The Senate adjourned without day. - - - - -FIRST CONGRESS.--THIRD SESSION. - -PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES - -IN - -THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. - - -MONDAY, December 6, 1790. - -On which day, being the day appointed by adjournment of the two Houses -for the meeting of the present session, the following members appeared -and took their seats, to wit: - -_From New Hampshire_--ABIEL FOSTER, NICHOLAS GILMAN, and SAMUEL -LIVERMORE. - -_From Massachusetts_--FISHER AMES, BENJAMIN GOODHUE, and GEORGE -THATCHER. - -_From Connecticut_--BENJAMIN HUNTINGTON, ROGER SHERMAN, and JONATHAN -STURGES. - -_From New York_--EGBERT BENSON, WILLIAM FLOYD, JOHN LAWRENCE, and PETER -SYLVESTER. - -_From New Jersey_--ELIAS BOUDINOT, LAMBERT CADWALADER, and JAMES -SCHUREMAN. - -_From Pennsylvania_--GEORGE CLYMER, THO'S FITZSIMONS, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS -MUHLENBERG, PETER MUHLENBERG, and HENRY WYNKOOP. - -_From Maryland_--JOSHUA SENEY. - -_From Virginia_--JOHN BROWN, SAMUEL GRIFFIN, and JAMES MADISON, Junior. - -_From North Carolina_--TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH and HUGH WILLIAMSON. - -_From South Carolina_--WILLIAM SMITH. - -_From Georgia_--ABRAHAM BALDWIN. - -Which not forming a quorum of the whole number, the House adjourned -until to-morrow. - - -TUESDAY, December 7. - -DANIEL HEISTER and THOMAS SCOTT, from Pennsylvania; RICHARD BLAND LEE, -from Virginia; and DANIEL HUGER, from South Carolina, appeared and took -their seats. - -WILLIAM B. GILES, from Virginia, returned in the place of Theodorick -Bland, deceased, also appeared, produced his credentials, and took his -seat. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 8. - -ELBRIDGE GERRY and JONATHAN GROUT, from Massachusetts; ANDREW MOORE and -ALEXANDER WHITE, from Virginia; and THOMAS TUDOR TUCKER, from South -Carolina, appeared and took their seats. - -A message from the Senate informed the House that they are ready to meet -the members of this House in the Senate Chamber, to receive the usual -communication from the President of the United States. - -Mr. SPEAKER, attended by the members of this House, then withdrew to the -Senate Chamber, for the purpose expressed in the above message. - -And being returned, the SPEAKER laid before the House a copy of the -Speech, delivered by the PRESIDENT (which will be found in the -proceedings of the Senate), - -Which being read, it was, on motion, committed to the consideration of a -Committee of the whole House to-morrow. - - -THURSDAY, December 9. - -JAMES JACKSON and GEORGE MATHEWS, from Georgia, appeared and took their -seats. - -_Address to the President._ - -On motion, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on -the Speech of the President of the United States, Mr. LIVERMORE in the -chair. - -On motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, the committee agreed to a resolution, which -the committee rose and reported to the House, which was concurred with -as follows: - - _Resolved_, that it is the opinion of this committee, that - an Address ought to be presented by the House to the - President of the United States, in answer to his Speech to - both Houses, with assurances that this House will, without - delay, proceed to take into consideration the various and - important matters recommended to their attention. - -And Messrs. MADISON, AMES, and TUCKER, were appointed to prepare the -Address. - - -FRIDAY, December 10. - -GEORGE PARTRIDGE, from Massachusetts; JONATHAN TRUMBULL and JEREMIAH -WADSWORTH, from Connecticut; THOMAS SINNICKSON, from New Jersey; and -WILLIAM SMITH, from Maryland, appeared and took their seats. - - -SATURDAY, December 11. - -A translation of the Letter from the President of the Commonalty of -Paris, addressed to the Federal Legislature, was read as follows: - - _Mr. President--Gentlemen:_ - - The news has reached our ears--FRANKLIN is no - more!--FRANKLIN, the citizen of the world!--All nations are - indebted to him for instruction in every branch of science. - They are all bound to participate in the grief occasioned - by this common loss. But the Assembly of the - Representatives of the Commonalty of our capital, thinking - it their duty, in addition to the general mourning, to pay - to his memory a further tribute of honor, have ordered, by - a public decree, that the virtues and talents of this great - philosopher should be perpetuated to distant ages, in a - public and solemn Eulogy--the first of the kind ever - bestowed by our nation on civic worth. - - By order of the Assembly I transmit it to your hands; and, - with the most lively sensations of pleasure, embrace the - opportunity of paying due homage to a body of men, who not - only possess, but are justly entitled to enjoy the sweets - of Liberty. - - May the approbation of your Assembly attend, as well the - present itself, as the fraternal and respectful sentiments - with which - - I am, Mr. President--Gentlemen, - Your most obedient humble servant, - BENIERE, - - _Doctor of the Sorbonne, Suppletory Member - of the National Assembly, and President - of the Commonalty of Paris._ - - To the PRESIDENT and CONGRESS _of the United States_. - -The letter accompanied twenty-six copies of the Eulogium on Dr. -FRANKLIN, delivered by the Abbé Fauchet, pursuant to a decree of that -body. - -Mr. BOUDINOT proposed that thirteen copies of the Eulogium be returned -to the President of the United States and the Senate; which was done. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed, that it would be proper to -request the President of the United States to return an answer to the -President of the Commonalty of Paris, or that a Joint Committee of the -House and Senate should be appointed for the purpose. He was not -tenacious of any particular mode, but supposed it highly proper that -some notice should be taken of the polite attention shown the Government -by the President of the Commonalty of Paris. The business was specially -committed to the SPEAKER. - -Agreeably to the order of the day, the House resolved itself into a -Committee of the Whole, to take into consideration the Address to the -President of the United States, in answer to his Speech to both Houses, -as reported yesterday. Mr. LIVERMORE in the chair. - -The Address was read by the clerk, and then discussed by the committee -in paragraphs. - -On reading the clause respecting the Western expedition against the -Indians, - -Mr. JACKSON rose and observed, that he was as fully impressed with the -importance of an Indian war, and of extending the protection of -Government to our defenceless frontiers, as any man whatever, and had no -doubt of the necessity of the measures taken to chastise the banditti -on the Ohio; but as a Representative from the State of Georgia, he -should think himself inexcusable were he not to express his astonishment -that no notice is taken in the President's speech of the treaty with the -Creek Nation; a treaty which has spread alarm among the people of that -State--a treaty by which more than three millions of acres of land, the -property of the State of Georgia, guarantied to that State by the -Constitution of the United States, are ceded away without any -compensation. Mr. J. then adverted to several articles of the treaty, -which he said controverted the plainest principles of the constitution, -particularly those parts which secure to every citizen the rights of -property. He contrasted the present situation of the inhabitants of -Georgia, with what it was under the British Government, and said this -treaty placed them in a less eligible situation in respect to the -Indians. - -It had been said, exclaimed he, that there are secret articles in the -treaty. Good God! at this early period are there to be secret articles -existing between the United States and any other nation under heaven! -Treaties by the constitution are to be considered the supreme law of the -land; but will Congress permit the laws of the United States, like those -of _Caligula_, to be placed where they cannot be read, and then punish -the people for not obeying them? The people will never submit to be -bound by secret articles. - -[Here the Chairman interrupted Mr. JACKSON, by inquiring whether his -observations were intended as introductory to any motion on the -paragraph just read.] - -Mr. J. replied, that it was his intention, at a future day, to introduce -a motion, that the President be requested to lay before this House the -treaty with the Creek Indians--not excepting the secret articles. He -then expatiated on the sufferings of the people of Georgia, and asked, -what must be their feelings when they reflect on the preparations made -to chastise the Wabash banditti, while the exertions of Congress have -not been called forth to their relief. The President sent three -Commissioners to Georgia (not one of whom was a citizen of that State). -They investigated the truth of her representations, and made a report -favorable to her claims, that the lands in dispute were fairly -purchased, and as fully obtained as the Confederation, or the nature of -the case would admit; but what has been the result? The treaty, so far -from recognizing the rights of Georgia, has sacrificed them--the report -of the Commissioners does not appear to have been attended to. On the -other hand, a savage of the Creeks has been invited and brought to the -seat of Government, and there loaded with favors, and caressed in the -most extraordinary manner. - -He said, he would not at present engross any more of the time of the -House, only to give notice that, at a future opportunity, he should move -that the President of the United States be requested to lay before the -House for their consideration, the treaty with the Creek Indians--not -excepting the secret articles. - -The paragraph respecting encouraging our own navigation being read, - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed, that he did not rise to propose -any alterations in the style of the Address; the language was such as -might be expected from the acknowledged abilities of the gentleman who -drafted it. The paragraph just read, he conceived, pledged the House to -take measures in respect to our own navigation, which may, in the issue, -prove injurious to the agricultural interests of the United States. At -this early period of the session, it appeared extremely improper for the -House to commit itself, especially as few, if any of the States, are -fully represented on the floor. He was afraid that the mode of -expression adopted in the Address would conduce to the exclusion of -foreign bottoms altogether. If the opinion of the committee should be -adopted by the House, he conceived it would be anticipating a decision -to the precluding future discussions of the subject. He foresaw that -this paragraph would be called up at some future period, and brought as -an argument against any different propositions that might be -offered--and thus the question be determined without any debate. He -thought the Address went into too minute a consideration of the several -parts of the Speech, and could have wished that more general terms had -been used. As a substitute for the paragraph under consideration, he -moved the following amendment in substance: - - "We shall consider with attention the best means of - guarding against the embarrassments you mention, and will - take such measures as may remove every obstruction to the - prosperity of the commerce and agriculture of the United - States." - -Mr. WILLIAMSON observed, that he saw no material difference between the -paragraph in the report and the amendment proposed. The mode of -expression adopted by the committee is in so general terms, that he -hoped it would have met the full approbation of every member of the -committee. The President proposes that the commerce of the United States -should be relieved from all injurious restrictions; nothing can be more -just and reasonable: and this is perfectly compatible with supporting -the agricultural interests of the country; the promotion of the former -involves that of the latter. He touched on the impositions of Great -Britain on our commerce, and observed, that reason and justice point out -the propriety of seeking redress. He, however, saw no opposition in the -two propositions; but as the obvious design in bringing forward the -substitute is to preclude such an inquiry as the exigency of the case -seems to require, he hoped it would not be adopted. - -Mr. JACKSON observed that he had seconded the motion of the gentleman -from South Carolina, because he thought there was an obvious difference -in the two modes of expression. He then entered into a discussion of the -subject generally; and enlarged on the injurious consequences which -would result to the Southern States particularly by enhancing the duties -on foreign bottoms. He said, that the tonnage was at present so high as -to prevent foreigners from becoming our carriers; several instances of -this had been mentioned to him from good authority; and while the -American shipping was incompetent to the object, and he called on -gentlemen to show that it was, the exclusion of foreign ships from our -ports must be ruinous to South Carolina and Georgia; therefore, he hoped -the amendment would take place. - -Mr. SHERMAN said, that the words in the report appeared to him less -exceptionable than those in the proposed amendment, even on the -principle supported by the gentleman in favor of the amendment. In the -report it was only said, we should consider what means, &c., but the -amendment declared we should take effectual measures. The words in the -report only binding us to consider--those in the amendment obliging us -to act. He thought the answer should be general, and was therefore -against the amendment. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed, that the member last up had -confined his observation to the first words in the paragraph objected -to. If he will take the trouble of reading a little further, he will -see, that as the report stands, we give it as our opinion, that foreign -bottoms ought to be excluded, which would be severely felt by the States -of South Carolina and Georgia. We cannot wholly depend upon our own -vessels for the exportation of our produce; they are not sufficiently -numerous, nor will they be for many years; therefore, let us not at this -time, in a hasty manner, declare, that all articles exported shall be -carried in our own bottoms. To settle this important question, Mr. S. -thought that some time should be given to reflect, and a day fixed for -discussion; in the mean time, he thought it improper at this stage of -the session, that the opinion of the House should be given. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON remarked, that the report did not say that we should have -no dependence on foreign bottoms; but that we should not depend -altogether upon them for the exportation of our produce. He had no idea -of excluding foreign bottoms. He was for making provision in case that -resource should fail. - -Mr. JACKSON.--To show the importance of foreign shipping to the Southern -States, and the inadequacy of our own to transport their produce, -notwithstanding the low duty on American shipping, Mr. J. read a -statement of the tonnage duties paid by each, in the State of Georgia, -for the same period; the foreign tonnage amounted to eight thousand two -hundred and twenty-seven dollars, the American to six hundred and -twenty-nine dollars only. This being the fact, he inquired, what could -be done with the Southern produce, in case of the exclusion of foreign -bottoms? It must rot in the planter's hands. With respect to the -amendment's being as positive as the clause in the report, as had been -asserted, if this is the case he could see no objection to its being -adopted. - -Mr. TUCKER said, he thought it improper that in an Address on this -occasion, the committee should go into a particular detail on every -subject; much less commit their judgment without a previous discussion. -The President may have maturely considered the subject during the -recess, but the committee cannot be supposed to be prepared for a -decision. The thinness of the House was a further objection, in his -opinion, to entering into a discussion of the question. He was not -pleased with the paragraph in the report, as it seemed to imply that -nothing had been done for the encouragement of our own navigation, the -reverse of which was fact. The posture of affairs in Europe suggested no -stronger reasons for giving further encouragement to our own navigation -than what was presented last session; the expediency of the measure is -not therefore apparent from any change of circumstances. Though he was -dissatisfied with the report, the amendment proposed fell short of his -wishes. It did not recognize what had been done for the encouragement of -American shipping. He would, therefore, propose a substitute by leave of -his colleague; which he did to the following purport: "The encouragement -of our own navigation has at all times appeared to us highly important, -and has employed a large share of our deliberations; we shall continue -to pay due attention to the subject, and consider by what means our -commerce and agriculture may be best promoted." - -Mr. SMITH withdrew his motion to admit Mr. TUCKER's. - -Mr. SENEY said, he could not conceive what ground of apprehension there -was in the Address, to lead gentlemen to suppose that the opinion of the -House would be committed by its adoption. He thought it couched in the -most general and unexceptionable terms. The amendment proposed he did -not think essentially variant from the paragraph under consideration; -but as the original was well expressed, he saw no reason for expunging -the clause; it contained an assertion, the truth of which he supposed -would not be controverted. As to the objection against going into a -detail of particulars, it was fully justified by precedent in the last -Address; the gentleman from South Carolina, he will recollect, was on -the committee who framed it; that Address more pointedly committed the -House than the present. - -Mr. MADISON thought proper to take some notice of the objections that -had been made to the report. There were two modes of proceeding, which -might be adopted in drawing up the answer. The first method was -generally to declare, that the House would take into their serious -consideration the business recommended to their attention by the -President. And this, he observed, would be saying nothing, for, as by -the constitution it was the President's duty to communicate what matters -he judged of importance, so it was undoubtedly that of the House to pay -attention to the objects recommended. The second method was, to enter -into a detail of the different points mentioned in the President's -Address, and in such cases where there was no doubt as to the propriety -of measures being taken, assure him, in the answer, that measures would -be adopted; and if any thing doubtful occurred, merely promise that the -subject would be attended to. This rule the committee had followed in -drawing up their report, and as in the business mentioned in the -paragraph now before the House, they did not hesitate to believe some -measures necessary, they could see no impropriety in assuring him that -the best would be adopted. He added, that as it is clear that a war in -Europe would, by depriving us of foreign bottoms to export our produce, -injure this country; and as wars were doubtful, it was of the utmost -importance that the American navy be put on so respectable a footing as -not to need foreign aid for the exportation of her produce. He further -observed, that the answer returned last session was more full, and went -even to give the President assurances that the House would concur in -certain points proposed for their consideration in his address. He -concluded by remarking, that the amendment proposed was binding on the -House quite as much as the paragraph in the report. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, it was true those who reported the -Address the last session, adverted to particulars; but were cautious in -their mode of expression, and adopted ambiguous language to avoid giving -an opinion. This would appear by recurring to that Address. The charge -of inconsistency on his part was therefore not well founded. Mr. S. read -some paragraphs of that Address, and observed that the House was not -pledged by the expressions then read; but in the present Address there -is an opinion given. It says that we ought not to depend on foreign -bottoms, because in case of war we may be deprived of that resource. -These declarations originated the objections, and gave rise to the -amendment. He proposed, therefore, as gentlemen appear to have no -objection to either mode of expression, that they would accommodate for -the sake of harmony and unanimity. - -The question on the amendment was lost by a considerable majority. - -The remainder of the Address was read, and agreed to by the committee. -The committee then rose and reported, and the House adopted it -unanimously. - -A committee was then appointed to wait on the President of the United -States, to know at what time and place it would be convenient for him to -receive the Address. - -The committee having waited on the President, Mr. MADISON reported, that -the President was pleased to return for answer, that, at two o'clock on -Monday next, he would receive the Address at his own house. - -Messrs. WILLIAMSON and SHERMAN were added to the committee on the bill -to amend the act for promoting the progress of the useful arts. - -Mr. MATHEWS was appointed on the committee on the militia bill, _vice_ -Mr. JACKSON, who begged leave to decline serving, as his colleague had -been heretofore on that business, and must consequently be better -acquainted with the subject than he was. - - -MONDAY, December 13. - -GEORGE LEONARD from Massachusetts; JOHN VINING, from Delaware; JOSIAH -PARKER, from Virginia; JOHN BAPTIST ASHE, from North Carolina; and -EDANUS BURKE, from South Carolina, appeared and took their seats. - -_Eulogium on Dr. Franklin._ - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) introduced the following motion, which was -read, and laid on the table: - - The House being highly sensible of the polite attention of - the Commonalty of Paris, in directing a eulogium to the - illustrious memory of Dr. Benjamin Franklin, pronounced - before them, to be transmitted to the President and - Congress of the United States, - - _Resolved_, That the Speaker communicate the sense of this - House in a letter addressed to the President and Commonalty - of Paris. - -_Address to the President._ - -At two o'clock, the House, preceded by the Sergeant-at-Arms, waited on -the President of the United States, at his house where the SPEAKER -delivered the following Address in answer to his Speech to both Houses: - - SIR: The Representatives of the people of the United States - have taken into consideration your Address to the two - Houses at the opening of the present session of Congress. - - We share in the satisfaction inspired by the prospects - which continue to be so auspicious to our public affairs. - The blessings resulting from the smiles of Heaven on our - agriculture, the rise of public credit, with the further - advantages promised to it, and the fertility of resources - which are found so little burdensome to the community, - fully authorize our mutual congratulations on the present - occasion. Nor can we learn, without an additional - gratification, that the energy of the laws for providing - adequate revenues have been so honorably seconded by those - classes of citizens whose patriotism and probity were more - immediately concerned. - - The success of the loan, opened in Holland under the - disadvantages of the present moment, is the more important, - as it not only denotes the confidence already placed in the - United States, but as the effects of a judicious - application of that aid will still further illustrate the - solidity of the foundation on which the public credit - rests. - - The preparatory steps taken by the State of Virginia, in - concert with the District of Kentucky, towards the erection - of the latter into a distinct member of the Union, exhibit - a liberality mutually honorable to the parties. We shall - bestow on this important subject the favorable - consideration which it merits, and with the national policy - which ought to govern our decision, shall not fail to - mingle the affectionate sentiments which are awakened by - those expressed in behalf of our fellow-citizens of - Kentucky. - - Whilst we regret the necessity which has produced offensive - hostilities against some of the Indian tribes north-west of - the Ohio, we sympathize too much with our Western brethren, - not to behold with approbation the watchfulness and vigor - which have been exerted by the Executive authority for - their protection; and which, we trust, will make the - aggressors sensible that it is their interest to merit, by - a peaceable behavior, the friendship and humanity which the - United States are always ready to extend to them. - - The encouragement of our own navigation has at all times - appeared to us highly important. The point of view under - which you have recommended it to us is strongly enforced by - the actual state of things in Europe. It will be incumbent - on us to consider in what mode our commerce and agriculture - can be best relieved from an injurious dependence on the - navigation of other nations, which the frequency of their - wars renders a too precarious resource for conveying the - productions of our own country to market. - - The present state of our trade in the Mediterranean seems - not less to demand, and will accordingly receive, the - attention which you have recommended. - - Having already concurred in establishing a Judiciary - system, which opens the doors of justice to all without - distinction of persons, it will be our disposition to - incorporate every improvement which experience may suggest; - and we shall consider, in particular, how far the - uniformity which in other cases is found convenient in the - administration of the General Government through all the - States may be introduced into the forms and rules of - executing sentences issuing from the Federal Courts. - - The proper regulation of the jurisdiction and functions - which may be exercised by Consuls of the United States in - foreign countries, with the provisions stipulated to those - of His Most Christian Majesty established here, are - subjects of too much consequence to the public interest and - honor not to partake of our deliberations. - - We shall renew our attention to the establishment of the - militia and other subjects unfinished at the last session, - and shall proceed in them with all the despatch which the - magnitude of all, and the difficulty of some of them, will - allow. - - Nothing has given us more satisfaction than to find that - the revenues heretofore established have proved adequate to - the purposes to which they were allotted. In extending the - provision to the residuary objects, it will be equally our - care to secure sufficiency and punctuality in the payments - due from the Treasury of the United States. We shall also - never lose sight of the policy of diminishing the public - debt, as fast as the increase of the public resources will - permit; and are particularly sensible of the many - considerations which press a resort to the auxiliary - resources furnished by the public lands. - - In pursuing every branch of the weighty business of the - present session, it will be our constant study to direct - our deliberations to the public welfare. Whatever our - success may be, we can at least answer for the fervent love - of our country, which ought to animate our endeavors. In - your co-operation, we are sure of a resource which - fortifies our hopes that the fruits of the established - Government will justify the confidence which has been - placed in it, and recommend it more and more to the - affection and attachment of our fellow-citizens. - -To the foregoing Address the PRESIDENT was pleased to reply: - - GENTLEMEN: The sentiments expressed in your Address are - entitled to my particular acknowledgment. Having no object - but the good of our country, this testimony of approbation - and confidence, from its immediate representatives, must be - among my best rewards, as the support of your enlightened - patriotism has been among my greatest encouragements. Being - persuaded that you will continue to be actuated by the same - auspicious principle, I look forward to the happiest - consequences from your deliberations during the present - session. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - -TUESDAY, December 14. - -JEREMIAH VAN RENSSELAER, from New York, and THOMAS HARTLEY, from -Pennsylvania, appeared and took their seats. - - -FRIDAY, December 17. - -JOHN HATHORN, from New York, and JOHN SEVIER, from North Carolina, -appeared and took their seats. - -BENJAMIN BOURNE, a member returned from Rhode Island, produced his -credentials, and took his seat. - - -MONDAY, December 27. - -_Public Lands._ - -The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the -Union, Mr. LIVERMORE in the chair. - -The report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the establishment of land -offices for the disposal of the vacant lands belonging to the United -States was taken up; when - -Mr. BOUDINOT offered the following resolution: - - _Resolved_, That it is the sense of the committee that a - Land Office be established at the seat of the General - Government, under the direction of ---- Commissioners. - -Mr. SCOTT wished the House to take a general view of the business before -they went into the particulars of the Secretary's report. Upon the -whole, he was pleased with the plan drawn up by that officer; one part, -however, he objected to--that part of the report which provided for the -distribution of the land. He did not approve of setting apart tracts for -particular descriptions of purchasers. As an amendment, he offered seven -propositions, which he wished, for the present, to lie on the table, and -which he proposed to offer as substitutes to different parts of the -Secretary's report, as they came before the House. His principal object -was to let the tracts which Congress proposed to sell be -indiscriminately located. - -Mr. BOUDINOT thought the committee could not then enter into the minutiæ -of the business. It was enough to fix the general principles, viz: -Whether there shall be a General Land Officer and two subordinates? -Whether they shall be under the direction of Commissioners? And whether -certain tracts of land should be reserved by Congress for certain -purposes? And then to appoint a committee to bring in a bill on those -principles, and to take into consideration the minutiæ of the business. - -Mr. SCOTT moved as a substitute his second proposition, that such -districts as shall be set apart for sale, shall include the actual -settlements, and be left to be indiscriminately located. He said it was -improper to set aside different tracts for different modes of -location--some in large tracts, others in small lots. He conceived it -would be the interest of Government to let every one purchase where he -pleased, and as much or as little as he chose. From experience, he knew -that those parts were always settled with the most celerity that were -not bound down to any of those restrictions. For his part, he could see -no good argument in favor of them. - -He wished some of the gentlemen who approved of this mode would give him -some reasons for preferring it. There could be no fear of individual -settlers scattering and losing themselves in the backwoods; there was a -sufficient check to prevent it--the Indians would keep them compact much -more effectually than any regulations Congress could make. If, after -granting certain scattered tracts to individual settlers, a considerable -tract, including these, was wanted, he could see no inconvenience in -granting it, reserving to the former settlers their rights. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON rose to give the gentleman last up one reason for -opposing indiscriminate location. Hitherto, he owned, much mischief had -not arisen from this mode of settlement; but now there were persons rich -in securities and cash, ready to take up considerable quantities of -land, which, if they were permitted to select here and there, would -select every choice tract they could; and those who might not have the -same means of purchasing immediately at command, could only obtain the -indifferent parcels. Many, he knew, had it in contemplation to do this, -if the opportunity offered. He instanced North Carolina as an example of -the injurious tendency of this liberty; where many tracts are unsaleable -owing to this circumstance. If these tracts were to be purchased by -actual settlers, the case would be different; they would only be taken -up by persons under the name of actual settlers. Such a practice would -be an impediment to such companies of Europeans as might wish to settle -among us. - -Mr. SCOTT said he expected the gentleman would have offered more solid -objections to his plan, and more forcible arguments in favor of the -other. Though the first settlers had the choice of the land, yet he -conceived the remaining part would acquire a considerable additional -value from the surrounding settlements. As for the European companies -who might be tempted to settle among us, he did not contemplate it as -an object so desirable. A body of French people settling in that way -would preserve their language and manners two thousand years perhaps. -This would not be for the true interest of the country; all its -inhabitants should, by mutual intercourse, become assimilated, and no -name be known but that of Americans. - -Mr. BOUDINOT was against indiscriminate location. He had seen the bad -effects of it in the State from which he came. Persons had bought up the -low lands, and sold them again to such as absolutely needed a water lot -to their farms, at enormous prices. He mentioned another objection to -the plan--the tendency it had to create lawsuits. He said more money had -been spent at law, in disputes arising from that mode of settlement, in -New Jersey, than would have been necessary to purchase all the land of -the State. The late Congress, he was informed, had adopted a method to -obviate the inconveniences of the former mode--the lands were laid out -into a mile square; these were divided into four equal squares, and in -that form sold. - -Mr. SCOTT said there were tracts of land which it is impossible to sell, -even by offering good parcels with them. Between Philadelphia and his -home there were spots which were only intended by nature for the birds -and beasts--that could be of no value for cultivation. He could not see -much probability that the best land would be picked out. The difficulty -of exploring a wild and uncultivated desert opposed a considerable -barrier to such attempts. - -Mr. SCOTT's amendment was lost. - - -TUESDAY, December 28. - -_Land Offices._ - -The House then went again into a Committee of the Whole on the state of -the Union, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair. The report of the Secretary of the -Treasury on the subject of a Land Office being under consideration. - -Mr. SCOTT said, he was ready to give some information relative to the -extent of the seven ranges. He produced a map of them, from which it -appeared that they included thirty-five lots, each six miles square. The -tract is in the shape of a triangle, of which one leg measured about -sixty, and the other forty-two--in all, about twelve hundred square -miles. His amendment was agreed to. - -The next article was agreed to, with a trifling amendment, without -debate. - -Then the following was read: - - "That the price shall be thirty cents per acre, to be paid - either in gold or silver, or public securities, computing - those which shall bear an immediate interest of six per - cent. as at par with gold and silver, and those which shall - bear a future or less interest, if any there be, at a - proportional value." - -Mr. SCOTT moved that thirty cents should be struck out. - -Mr. SHERMAN was in favor of inserting fifty cents per acre. He said -there was every reasonable probability the lands would be worth that sum -in a few years. - -Mr. LAWRENCE said, that as the quality of the land would vary, it -appeared proper to fix on two prices at which they should be sold, viz: -That the price shall not be more than ----, nor less than ----. He -submitted the idea to the consideration of the committee. - -Mr. SEDGWICK preferred the insertion of a sum below which the lands -should not be sold. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON suggested the propriety of making a difference in the -price to those who purchase large quantities, from the price to those -who purchase small quantities. - -The motion for striking out was lost. - -Mr. SEDGWICK then moved to amend the clause, by inserting "that the -price per acre shall not be less than thirty cents." - -Mr. STONE objected to the motion. He said the operation of it would be -to leave it discretionary with the Surveyors to fix the price of the -various tracts. This would be to constitute a tribunal in a measure -independent of the Government. He thought the policy of the Government -should be to fix on a price, which shall be so reasonable, that persons -may feel every inducement to pay it before they take up the lands; for -it has been found by experience, that when once a tract of distant -country is taken possession of, you never can get any thing more than -the settlers are willing to pay. He insisted that it was impracticable -to fix the relative value of unlocated lands--it had been repeatedly -tried without effect. He asked if any of the States had ever established -various rates for their lands? He knew of none. - -Mr. SEDGWICK answered the inquiry respecting the relative value of lands -being ascertained in the several States. He said, that so far as his -information extended, which respected only the States of New York, New -Hampshire, and Massachusetts, this had invariably been the case. Every -man knows there is a most essential difference in the value of lands. -Those on navigable rivers may be ten times as valuable as those on the -top of a mountain. This every individual is so sensible of, that a -difference in the price is constantly made; and why the Government -should not make a difference, it is impossible to say. Any man, by -casting his eye upon the map, can at once determine that some part of -the land is unspeakably more valuable than other parts. He was certain -that vesting a discretionary power, in the disposal of the lands, would -be productive of the greatest advantage to the United States, and on -this principle he could not conceive why the Surveyors should not -determine the relative quality, that the United States may stand some -chance of getting the value of this property. - -Mr. LIVERMORE was in favor of Mr. SEDGWICK's motion, and enlarged on the -unreasonableness of fixing a particular price. - -Mr. JACKSON was opposed to investing a discretionary power to determine -the price with any persons whatsoever. It had been productive of -mischievous consequences in the State of Georgia. He was for fixing a -price, and the highest price--the best the land would bear; when that is -sold, if the revenue will not bear the price established, it can then be -reduced. - -Mr. SCOTT objected to the motion. He stated several difficulties; the -principal was, that foreigners would be deterred from adventuring, owing -to the uncertainty in the price; for when they arrive in the country to -settle, they must purchase, and they will then lie at the mercy of -speculators. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--The people have great dependence on the Western territory -as a fund to extinguish their debt; it therefore becomes the duty of the -Government to obtain the best price they can for it. The question is, -whether we shall fix a price, or adopt the plan proposed by the -gentleman from Massachusetts. He was in favor of the latter, and said he -doubted not it would be easy to make a discrimination in the relative -qualities of the lands. This difference in price may render it worth -while for the Commissioners to have the land of a particular district -explored. He replied to the objection from the want of integrity in the -surveyors. Admitting the full force of the objection, it was probable -that the United States would gain by it; at any rate, it would not lose; -and it was probable that, to avoid suspicion, if the surveyors should be -interested in the tract surveyed, they would give more than thirty -cents. With respect to foreigners, after they arrive in this country, -they then will be on the same footing with our own citizens. He adverted -to the mode which had been adopted by New York--they had sold lands in -every way, at a certain price, at auction, and are now selling them at -the discretion of Commissioners, at a rate not below a certain sum. - -Mr. STONE objected to the mode of leaving the price unfixed, as it would -involve a complex system, subjecting the purchasers to great -inconvenience, perplexity, and uncertainty. He reprobated the system -adopted by New York, and asked the gentleman (Mr. LAWRENCE) whether New -York had not been subjected to great loss and vexation in consequence of -the plan they had pursued? He wished the system of New York should be -fully understood, in order that the United States may avoid it. He -concluded by saying, that he was in favor of fixing a price, and -supposed that the Western Territory, sold at thirty cents per acre, -would sink the whole of the national debt. - -Mr. LAWRENCE replied to Mr. STONE. He said, that when the State of New -York sold their lands at a fixed price, there had been complaints on -account of the best tracts being taken up. When they had sold them at -auction, the value of the lands had been generally realized in -proportion to the quality. With respect to the last mode adopted, the -result was not yet known. - -Mr. WHITE said, if gentlemen had proposed the amendment to the clause -which respects large purchases, he should not have objected to it. He, -however, objected to it in the present case, and, in order to show that -a fixed price was most eligible for small quantities, he instanced the -practice of Lord Fairfax, who had been a great proprietor in Virginia; -and also the practice of the first proprietors of Pennsylvania. These -sold their lands, good and bad, at one price; their experience for such -a length of time, near a century, he thought sufficient to show that -mode to be the most eligible. He would not object to fixing that -condition to special contract. - -Mr. SEDGWICK obviated the objection in the first instance, by saying -that the officers will be able to determine, with very considerable -precision, what will be for the interest of the United States. He said -experience had proved that there were no insuperable difficulties in the -case. - -Mr. MOORE observed, that the actual value of the best lands in that -territory was about thirty cents per acre. When all of that description -is sold, the next will bring the same price; from whence he inferred, -that there could be no difficulty or loss attending fixing the price. He -stated some difficulties which would result from adopting the mode -proposed. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 5. - -_Duties on Spirits._ - -The House, agreeably to the order of the day, resolved itself into a -Committee of the Whole, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair, and took into -consideration the bill repealing, after a certain time, the act laying -duties on distilled spirits, &c., and imposing others in their stead. - -Mr. JACKSON moved to strike out the essential part of the first clause. -He stated his objections at large against the principles of the bill, -and reprobated the funding system, and an excise in particular, as an -auxiliary to it. - -The tenor of his observations was to show that this mode of taxation was -odious, unequal, unpopular, and oppressive, more particularly in the -Southern States; in which he observed its unequal operation would be -most sensibly felt, as the citizens of those States have no alternative -to adopt by which they can diminish the weight of the tax; no breweries -or orchards to furnish a substitute for spirituous liquors; hence they -become a necessary article. He contended that they were not only -necessary, but salutary in the Southern regions. This, he said, had been -acknowledged by an Eastern author, _Mr. Morse_, an authority which he -presumed would not be disputed by the Northern gentlemen, especially -when it was considered he was a clergyman. Mr. M. declares that grog is -a necessary article of drink in the Southern States. - -Mr. J. took notice of the petition of the College of Physicians, which -had lately been read in the House on the subject of distilled spirits. -He disapproved highly of their interfering in the business. He thought -they might with equal propriety interpose their offices to prevent the -use of many other articles which were deemed pernicious or of a -poisonous quality. He instanced mushrooms; they might petition Congress -to pass a law interdicting the use of catsup, because some ignorant -persons had been poisoned by eating mushrooms. - -Mr. J. then gave a short sketch of the history of excises in England. He -said they always had been considered by the people of that country as an -odious tax, from the time of _Oliver Cromwell_ to the present day; even -_Blackstone_, a high prerogative lawyer, has reprobated them. He said, -he hoped this country would take warning by the experience of the people -of Great Britain, and not sacrifice their liberties by wantonly -contracting debts which would render it necessary to burden the people -by such taxes as would swallow up their privileges. We are, said he, too -much in the habit of imitating that country; and I plainly perceive that -the time will come when a shirt shall not be washed without an excise. -He then expatiated on the unequal operation of excises, and instanced -the experience of this State. A few counties, said he, approximate to -the capital, have borne the weight of the whole, while the distant parts -of the State did not feel the burden; and, by an indication of several -particulars, he showed its unequal operation in the Southern States. It -will deprive the mass of the people of almost the only luxury they -enjoy, that of distilled spirits. He did not see the necessity of -passing this law the present session. The amount of the produce of the -duties laid last session is not yet known, nor is it yet ascertained -whether the citizens will subscribe to the assumption. Let us not lay a -tax for a purpose which may never exist; for my part, I hope they never -will subscribe. He then adverted to the excess of duties already laid, -and the probability of a great increase of that excess; and urged the -propriety of waiting at least another quarter to see what that excess -may amount to. These observations he enforced by recurring to the recent -transactions of the States of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina; -and he expected to hear very shortly that the Assembly of Georgia had -expressed similar opinions with the latter States on the business of the -assumption. He concluded by expressing a general disapprobation of the -various parts of the bill. - -Mr. PARKER said, he had seconded the motion of the gentleman from -Georgia, not because he was more averse to this particular clause than -to the subsequent parts of the bill. He exceedingly disliked the several -provisions contained in it. He then adverted to the general process of -the revenue business the last session; and observing on the conduct of -the mercantile interest, to which so much credit had been given, said, -he thought they were not entitled to the liberal encomiums which had -been bestowed on them for their promptitude in paying the duties, as -the certainty and increase of the revenue had served to enhance the -value of the public securities, of which it is well known they hold a -very considerable portion. - -He then touched on the subsequent parts of the bill, which he reprobated -as hostile to the liberties of the people, as contrary to the general -sentiment; not only as partial and unequal in the mode of assessment, -but particularly on account of the mode of collecting the tax. It will, -said he, convulse the Government; it will let loose a swarm of harpies, -who, under the denomination of revenue officers, will range through the -country, prying into every man's house and affairs, and like a -Macedonian phalanx bear down all before them. And though the Government -has proceeded with a degree of prosperity and success beyond the most -sanguine expectations, yet he very much doubted the policy of trying its -strength by an experiment of this nature. - -Recurring to the actual and probable produce of the duties already laid, -he attempted to show that the additional sum of upwards of eight hundred -thousand dollars, contemplated to be raised by this bill, is not -necessary. He controverted the policy of the measure, and contended that -it would, in all probability, rather diminish than increase the revenue -of the United States. For the mercantile part of the community, who have -been applauded for acting so honorably in making their entries, and -paying the impost, will find it for their interest to alter their -conduct; they will combine to defeat the excise, which will in its -operations bear so unequally on them. - -He objected very particularly to the bill on account of its tendency to -promote smuggling. Mr. P. said, no man was more heartily disposed than -he was to give his approbation to every just measure for supporting the -public credit, and doing every thing in his power to support the -constitutional operations of the Government; but this mode of raising a -revenue he considered as particularly odious to the people; and at the -present moment he was not satisfied that such an increase to the public -burdens is necessary. - -Mr. STONE said, he had no objection to the design of the bill so far as -additional revenue was necessary; but the mode of raising it by excise -he exceedingly disliked. He had no doubt that other means might be -devised; but at present he thought the committee was not sufficiently -informed respecting the actual and probable amount of the revenue from -the duties already imposed, to determine the necessity of an addition to -the revenue. He therefore moved that the committee should rise without -any further discussion of the bill at this time, and that a select -committee should be appointed to make the necessary previous inquiries -upon the subject, and report to the House. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS observed that there was already on the table a statement -from the proper officers of the product of the revenue, from September, -1789, to September, 1790. - -This statement was read. - -The motion for the committee's rising was put and lost. - -The question on Mr. JACKSON's motion for striking out the clause was -put, and negatived by a great majority. - - -THURSDAY, January 6. - -_Duties on Spirits._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -bill repealing after the last day of ---- next, the act laying duties on -distilled spirits, &c., and imposing others in their stead. Mr. BOUDINOT -in the chair. - -The twelfth section, which specifies the rates of duties, being read, - -Mr. PARKER moved that it should be struck out, in order to admit a -substitute which should provide for a different mode of raising the -requisite additional revenue; the proposition he had in view, he said, -was a duty on molasses. This, he observed, would answer every purpose, -without being liable to the objections which had been offered against -the plan of the bill. - -Mr. MADISON observed, that he had felt the force of the objections which -had been urged against the bill. He was in general principled against -excises, but of all excises, that on ardent spirits he considered the -least exceptionable. The question now to be determined, he conceived, -was this--is an addition to the present amount of the revenue necessary? -It had appeared that an addition is necessary; for his own part, he -should prefer direct taxation to any excises whatever; but he conceived -this would be contrary to the sentiments of a majority of the people of -the United States; and he was fully convinced that it was contrary to -the opinion of a great majority of the House. If, said he, any mode -could be adopted, without having recourse to excises, he would be the -last that would give them support; but he conceived there was none, and -the plan proposed was divested of the most exceptionable provisions -usually connected with an excise system. - -Mr. JACKSON observed, that his defeat yesterday should not deter him, -while he had a monitor within, from rising in his place to do his duty, -in opposition to a system unfriendly to the liberties of the people. He -said, he was not the first on this floor who had been outvoted by silent -majorities; gentlemen of superior abilities had met with similar -treatment. He, however, felt so much respect for himself as to suppose -that this silence proceeded from an inability to answer the arguments -which he had the honor to offer against what he considered a most -ruinous and mischievous system of taxation. - -He then stated certain particulars respecting the produce of the -revenue, to show that so great a sum as is proposed to be raised by -excise is unnecessary. - -He doubted not other resources of revenue might be explored which would -be more palatable; he instanced a tax on salaries, pensions, and -lawyers, and in these particulars, he wished that the example of Great -Britain might be followed. - -He then dilated on the practice of smuggling, which he contended would -be promoted by this bill; also the difficulties and opposition which -were justly to be expected, by which the dignity of the Government would -be insulted. Can this Government, said he, protect its officers from the -resentment of any one State in the Union? He reprobated the idea of -placing the Government in such a situation. - -Mr. LAWRENCE observed, that he doubted not every gentleman's mind was -open to conviction, and he hoped and expected that every question would -be treated dispassionately. He did not rise yesterday to answer the -gentleman, because he was not impressed with the force of his arguments -in the manner the gentleman supposed the House was. He then adverted to -the act of the last session, by which the debts of the particular States -were assumed. Having taken this debt upon ourselves, the consequence is -obvious, nor can we ever get over the dishonor of not making the -necessary provision for paying it. He then adverted to the statements -which had been submitted to the House by the officer to whom the Union -had intrusted the direction of its finances. From these it fully -appeared that a much greater deficiency in the revenue existed than some -gentlemen appeared willing to allow. If this deficiency exists, and if -the United States are bound to make provision for the debts they have -assumed to pay, the duties contemplated by the bill appear the most -obvious for the Government to recur to. He adverted to the idea of -direct taxation, and inquired, on what principle will gentlemen consent -to this mode of raising the necessary supplies? Will they make the -representation of the several States the rule by which it shall be -apportioned? He doubted whether direct taxes on this principle would be -agreeable, even to the gentlemen who have mentioned them. He then -remarked on the objections to an excise, on account of the mode of -collection. He said a rigorous collection would bear hard only on the -dishonest, while it would protect the fair trader from bearing an undue -proportion of the public burdens. - -He observed on the uneasiness which is said to prevail in some of the -States; and to obviate the force of these reflections he instanced the -harmony and peace that prevailed in those States which bear a much -greater proportion of the public burdens than those which complain, as -was abundantly evident from the documents in possession of the House. - -Mr. STEELE stated his objections at large to an excise; he adverted to -the particular situation of affairs in some of the Southern States, -especially North Carolina. The Assembly of that State had rejected the -proposal of taking an oath to support the Constitution of the United -States, with scorn; they had also refused to admit Continental prisoners -into their jails; and another circumstance more hostile to the General -Government than either of the foregoing had taken place, which he -forbore to mention. He said such was the present state of the public -mind, in various parts of the Union, that he should dread taking any -measures which might serve to increase the fermentation which the people -are in. An excise he considered of this nature; it would in its -operations produce the worst consequences. A more exceptionable mode of -taxation he conceived could not be devised. A direct or poll tax, he -supposed, would not be so odious; and though, for his own part, he -should prefer an excise to either of the former taxes, yet such was the -aversion of the people to it, that he should prefer almost any other -alternative. He thought other objects might be found from which the -necessary revenue could be raised. He instanced duties on inland -navigation, law proceedings, legal conveyances, &c. - -He then adverted to the operation of an excise, especially in the State -of North Carolina, and said that the consumption of ardent spirits in -that State was so great that the duty would amount perhaps to ten times -as much as in the State of Connecticut. On the whole, he hoped, if the -section is not struck out, that the excise will be reduced. - -Mr. SHERMAN observed, that the subject now before the committee was -thoroughly discussed the last session; and as nothing new or of weight -or importance had been offered the present session against it, he -thought it would be a useless waste of the time of the House to go into -a particular reply to the objections offered against the bill. This he -thought a sufficient answer to the charge of carrying questions by -silent majorities. - -He then entered into a short consideration of the subject generally, and -defended the system from the charges which had been adduced respecting -its unequal operation. - -Mr. LIVERMORE was in favor of the bill. He said he considered it as an -equal and just mode of taxation; and, as such, will be agreeable to the -people--they will consider it as drinking down the national debt. So -far, said he, as my observations have extended, I have not found a -single individual who has objected to it. He then obviated the -objections to the bill, which he conceived arose principally from the -word excise. He thought the term very improperly applied on the present -occasion, for the duty cannot be said to be an excise. He then gave a -description of what had been considered in times past as an excise, -which, to be sure, is a very unequal tax, inasmuch as it fell on the -poor only, who were obliged to purchase in small quantities; while the -rich, by storing their cellars, escaped the duty. But this bill provides -that the duty shall fall equally on the rich and poor. It is to be paid, -or secured, by the importer of foreign spirits, and on the still-head on -domestic spirits. This will equalize the burden, and leave no room for -complaint. He then adverted to direct taxation; and by a variety of -particulars, showed that it was utterly impossible to lay a direct tax -that would not prove unjust, unequal, and grievously oppressive. - -Mr. BLOODWORTH spoke against the bill. He dilated largely on the present -uneasiness which prevailed in the State of North Carolina. His -experience, he said, was directly contrary to that of the gentleman from -New Hampshire; the people to the southward universally condemned an -excise. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, he was unhappy to hear that discontents prevailed in -any part of the United States. He could assure gentlemen that he did not -contemplate the execution of the laws by military force. He was sure -that in no part of the Legislature were entertained designs inimical to -the public liberty. In framing the present bill, great attention had -been paid to prevent its being attended with those qualities which, in -other countries, rendered taxation by excise justly obnoxious to popular -resentment. He relied on the good sense and well-informed understandings -of the people in every part of America, for the execution of such -systems for the support of public credit, and for the diminution of the -national debt, as should be devised by the wisdom of their -Representatives. For the same purposes, he said, he confided in the -patriotism of the gentlemen who came from those districts of country -where uneasiness was said to exist. He believed there was indeed -considerable deficiency to be provided for, for the support of -Government and of the public credit. This belief was founded in his -confidence in the information received from the Secretary of the -Treasury. But if there was no deficiency, his disposition to support the -bill would be the same; for he had never believed that a public debt was -a public benefit. Is it not, then, the duty of those to whom the people -have delegated the important trust of guarding their prosperity, in a -season of profound peace, to liberate them from the burden and pressure -of debt? Therefore the only question to be determined is, whether the -proposed duties are a proper source from whence we might derive the -necessary aids to provide for the payment of the interest, or the -diminution of the principal of our debt? He believed that of all the -subjects of revenue which were within the power of Congress, none was so -proper as the duty on ardent spirits, contemplated by the bill. In this -sentiment, he believed he concurred with that of the great body of the -people. The several species of taxation may be divided into the four -following: by impost; a tax on internal negotiations; direct taxes; and -that now under consideration, excise. The impost duties had been -extended as far as was, in the opinion of any gentleman, dictated by -sound policy. The tax on internal negotiations, which could not be -carried on to any considerable extent without the intervention of -stamps, was subject to the objection brought against the present bill, -and that in a degree incomparably beyond it, of being opposed by public -opinion. Direct taxes are still more objectionable on that account, at -least in every part of the country to which his knowledge extended. They -are of all taxes the most unequal, and in this country would be found -the most oppressive. They are unequal, because with whatever exactness -they might be apportioned upon capital or income, the only two -principles on which an apportionment can be made, they may, and will be, -very unequal as to the burden imposed; because a man's ability to pay -taxes is not in proportion either to his capital, his property, or his -income, but to that part of his income which is over and above his -necessary expenses, according to the usual manner of living for persons -of his degree in the community. They will be oppressive in this country, -because in many of the States the plentiful circulation of money, and -the facility of obtaining it, does not extend to the interior parts, nor -could it be obtained by many of our citizens without a great sacrifice -of property. It may be added, that from the extent of our settlements -compared with the number of our citizens, the expense of collection -would be immense. - -In regard to excises, Mr. S. said, that in all insensible modes of -taxation, it should be observed, that a much greater sum would be -obtained from an individual than by any mode of direct imposition: this, -without entering into a discussion of the reasons upon which it was -founded, is demonstrated by fact. He instanced the porters of London, -from whom, in the single article of beer, was drawn ten times as much as -could be procured by the most rigorous mode of direct taxation. With -regard to the proposed duties, though the well-meant consideration of -morality which had been urged by some gentlemen weighed but little with -him, because he doubted whether it was well founded, yet, if the -consumption should be lessened, he did not believe it would be attended -with any sensible inconvenience. The consumption, at present, amounts to -an enormous quantity; from these considerations, as the measure is -dictated by sound policy, he hoped and believed it would be supported by -a good degree of unanimity. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) adverted to the funding system, to show -that the faith of the United States was pledged to raise a sufficient -revenue to discharge the debt, which, by that system, they have engaged -to pay. The Secretary's statements point out a deficiency; those -statements, he had no doubt, were as accurate as the nature of things -would admit. Gentlemen who find fault with the proposed plan do not -offer a substitute. He then entered into a defence of the bill, and -showed in what respects it differed from the English plan of an excise. - -He said, the present bill was not so exceptionable on account of its -violating private property as the collection law. - -He instanced, in a particular clause of that law, the power of entering -houses by warrant from a justice of the peace--trial by jury is secured -by this bill, and other provisions friendly to personal rights are -added. - -Direct taxes are as much objected to by North Carolina as the excise; -and though direct taxes are mentioned, no plan is offered. - -He then enlarged on the importance of punctuality in paying the interest -of the public debt, and of having a surplus revenue in the Treasury. He -doubted not the gentlemen in favor of the bill were as patriotic as -those who are averse to it. Difference of opinion is to be expected; but -he had a better opinion of the good sense of the community than to -suppose they would be led away by a sound; they will see and judge for -themselves; and when they see that the law is free from all those -obnoxious qualities which have been suggested, they will submit to it -without complaint, especially when they realize that the tax is equal, -and the only effective resource within the present command of the -Government. The General Government is authorized to lay excises--North -Carolina knew this when she adopted the constitution. The opposition, he -suspected, was against the object to which the money is to be -appropriated. - -Mr. GILES said, the sentiments of the people of the Southern States have -been so differently represented from what he conceived to be the state -of facts, that, in justice to them he conceived himself bound to take -some notice of the observations which had fallen from gentlemen. He then -stated certain principles on which taxation should be formed. Taxes -should be necessary, and raised on a plan consistent with the principles -of liberty. He adverted to the necessity, which, he observed, was -abundantly apparent from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury; -but he did not confine his opinion to what had fallen from him. He -instanced other reasons which would occasion a necessity for -replenishing the public Treasury. The expediency of the present mode he -argued from the impost's being carried to the utmost; from the -approbation of this mode by a majority of the people; and though -uneasiness might prevail in some of the Southern States, he considered -them as originating altogether from want of due information. Possessed -of that information, he could pledge himself to the committee that they -would cheerfully acquiesce in whatever the Legislature should decide to -be for the general interest. - -With respect to the bill's being agreeable to the principles of liberty -and republicanism, this would more properly come into view when that -part of the bill which designates the mode of collection comes under -consideration. At present he would only say, that he had observed with -pleasure, that there appeared to be a universal disposition in the -members of the House to manifest the most scrupulous attention, in all -their deliberations, to the liberties of the people. - -On the whole, he had no doubt that, on mature reflection, the people -would acquiesce in the present plan, when the honor, security, and peace -of the United States appeared to be essentially connected with a -further provision for the public exigencies. - -Mr. STONE particularly alluded to the statement offered by Mr. JACKSON, -by which it appears that only the sum of 146,000 dollars was -wanting--whereas the Secretary's report calls for the enormous sum of -800,000 dollars. He called on gentlemen to show the errors of the -statement offered by the gentleman. It had not been done. - -He then adverted to the number of people that would probably be wanted -in order to make the duty productive. He believed they would be so -numerous as to be sufficient to constitute an army. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS read an estimate of the actual and probable produce of -the present impost and tonnage for the current year, by which it appears -there will be a deficiency of upwards of 300,000 dollars; but taking -into consideration certain contingencies, which, should they take place, -will diminish the amount of the present duties, it appeared that the -deficiency would be much larger than the sum mentioned; but even in case -of a surplus being produced by this bill, there are objects to which it -can be applied highly beneficial to the United States. He instanced -sinking the deferred stock, and the three per cents. The reduction of -the public debt is an object which ought never to be lost sight of. - - -MONDAY, January 10. - -_Vacancy in the Presidency._ - -In Committee of the Whole on the bill, declaring what officer, in case -of vacancy [by death, removal, or inability] in the offices of President -and Vice President, shall act as President, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair. - -The first clause of the bill was read, which contains a blank to be -filled up, designating the person who shall act as President. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed that, by the constitution, the -vacancy is to be filled with an officer of the United States. This -narrows the discussion very much. But he conceived there was a previous -question necessary to be determined; and that was, whether the person -appointed to supply the vacancy should hold the office during the time -for which the President and Vice President were elected, or whether he -was to hold the office only till a new election could take place. He -thought that, by the constitution, a new election was not to take place -till the term for which the President and Vice President had been -elected was expired. - -He then descanted on the respective offices of the Chief Justice, -Secretary of State, and Secretary of the Treasury; and, by several -particulars, showed that the appointment would most naturally devolve on -the Secretary of State. He accordingly moved that the blank be filled -with the words "The Secretary of State." - -Mr. LIVERMORE observed, that in considering this question, he thought no -reference should be had to the officers which had been mentioned, for, -as it was supposed that the case contemplated would not happen once in -a hundred years, he conceived that the present characters, who now hold -the above offices, would be entirely out of the question. He had in view -a different person, and that was the President of the Senate, _pro -tempore_, and moved that the blank be filled with this person. - -Mr. WHITE observed, that the constitution says the vacancy shall be -filled by an officer of the United States. The President, _pro tempore_, -of the Senate, is not an officer of the United States. Besides, this -will give one branch of the Legislature the power of electing a -President. This, he conceived, was contrary to the constitution, as both -branches have a right to an equal voice in the appointment in this case. -This will introduce the very evil intended to be guarded against. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON said, the motion was directly repugnant to the -constitution. Why not choose the Speaker of this House? - -Mr. LIVERMORE said, he was well aware of the objections offered by the -gentlemen. He could have wished the constitution had pointed out the -person. But he conceived that the Senate was the only body that could do -this business. If either of the officers mentioned should be the person -designated to supply the vacancy, it would be in the power of the Vice -President, by virtue of the power of removing officers, absolutely to -appoint a successor, without consulting either branch of the -Legislature. - -Mr. SHERMAN observed that this matter is left with the Legislature. The -whole power of the people, in case of vacancy, devolves on the -Legislature. The particular officer is not pointed out; it lies with -Congress to say who it shall be. The President of the Senate is an -officer of the United States. In case of the death of a Governor and -Lieutenant Governor, it is common in the several States, for the oldest -councillor to preside. He instanced the case of the abdication of James -II. Adverting to the constitution, he showed that the appointment of -Vice President, in certain cases, devolves on the Senate. The vacancy -may be filled for a longer or shorter time, and this appears to be a -question previous in its nature to be determined. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said he should be in favor of the motion of the gentleman -from New Hampshire, if it was not for the express provision in the -constitution, which says, the office shall be filled by an officer of -the United States. Should the vacancy now happen, there would be no -officer of the Senate that could be appointed. - -He mentioned that the office of Chief Justice was considered as next to -that of President, and therefore on the whole, he considered him as the -most proper person to fill the vacancy. He thought the bill respecting -the votes for President and Vice President should be first determined. -He moved, therefore, that the committee should rise, and take up the -next bill. - -Mr. CARROLL and Mr. LIVERMORE objected to the motion for the committee's -rising. - -Mr. MADISON was also opposed to the motion. He enlarged on the subject, -and said he thought it a duty urged by a variety of considerations, -important in themselves, and more so, perhaps, in their consequences, -that the decision should now be made. - -Mr. SMITH started a variety of objections to Mr. LIVERMORE's -proposition. He thought it unconstitutional, as it would, in its -operation, deprive a State of a vote in the Senate. - -Mr. BOURNE said he seconded the motion for the committee's rising, -because he conceived there was other business of more immediate -importance to be considered; and he saw no necessity for coming to a -decision on this question at the present time. - -Mr. LAWRENCE supposed that the blank could be filled up in the House; he -was, therefore, in favor of the committee's rising. - -The motion for the committee's rising was negatived. - -Mr. BENSON was in favor of filling up the blank with the Chief Justice. -He observed that the objection arising from the Vice President's having -it in his power to name his successor, in case the Secretary of State is -inserted, does not apply to the Chief Justice. He is independent of the -Executive. - -He pointed out several particulars, in which there was an -incompatibility in the offices of Secretary of State, and that of -President. He observed that the appointment to the Regency, in all -countries, is generally of the first law officer. - -Mr. JACKSON objected to the Chief Justice, and said the Speaker of the -House of Representatives was, in his opinion, the next officer in point -of dignity to the President and Vice President. - -Mr. MADISON objected to the Chief Justice, as it would be blending the -Judiciary and the Executive. He objected to the President _pro tem._ of -the Senate. He will be a Senator of some particular State, liable to be -instructed by the State, and will still hold his office--thus he will -hold two offices at once. He adverted to the other objections which had -been offered against the Secretary of the State, and showed the -compatibility of the two offices. - -Mr. STONE stated sundry difficulties respecting all the officers that -had been named; but, on the whole, thought there were fewer against the -Secretary of State than any other officer that had been mentioned. - -Mr. SENEY was opposed to coming to any decision at the present time. He -thought more important business was before the House. He was not for -making any decision that would give umbrage to any officer of the -Government. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury -were equally entitled to public notice. - -Mr. CARROLL was in favor of coming to a decision; and if nothing more -could be offered against the motion for filling up the blank with the -Secretary of State, he presumed the committee were ripe for a decision. -He referred to the situation of countries who had not, in season, made -provision for a Regent, &c. - -Mr. SHERMAN said, he was in favor of the committee's rising and -reporting the bill, and leaving the blanks to be filled up in the House. - -Mr. WHITE was in favor of filling up the blank in the committee--he saw -no reason for a delay. The officers mentioned are as well known now as -they will be three days hence. The President and Vice President being in -health, is a reason why the subject should now be considered; it can be -done with coolness and freedom from all warmth. - -Mr. LAWRENCE said, he thought there was no necessity for precipitating -the decision. With respect to every person that has been named, -difficulties have been started. The subject is important, and time -should be given to deliberate on the several officers that have been -named. He hoped, therefore, that the committee would rise and report the -bill, and leave the blank to be filled up at another time. - -Mr. BURKE was in favor of the committee's rising. He observed, that the -members in general appeared to be very much undetermined. This is the -first day the subject has been under consideration. He hoped the members -would not be precipitated to vote on the occasion. - -Mr. CARROLL said, if the committee should rise, he hoped the bill would -not be reported, but that they would sit again. - -Mr. BURKE said, he hoped the committee would sit again. - -The question on the committee's rising and reporting progress, was -carried in the affirmative. - - -THURSDAY, January 13. - -_Vacancy in the Presidency._ - -In Committee of the Whole, on the bill declaring the officer who, in -case of vacancy in the offices of President and Vice President, shall -exercise the office of President of the United States, Mr. BOUDINOT in -the chair. - -The motion for filling up the blank with "the Secretary of State for the -time being," was renewed by Mr. CARROLL. - -Mr. LIVERMORE observed, that the character of the gentleman who fills -that office should have no weight in determining the question, because -the House was about to provide for a case that might not happen before a -number of years were elapsed. The House should fix on the officer who -would, from the nature of his office, most naturally succeed. He hoped -they would not determine in favor of an officer of their own creating, -and of which no mention is made in the constitution. The Chief Justice, -he remarked, had been spoken of: one great objection he mentioned -against him--the provision which the constitution makes in case the -President is impeached, viz: that he should preside. As this was an -elective Government, he wished its principles preserved, and not to see -the Chief Magistracy filled by an officer not the choice of the people. -The President of the Senate _pro tem_, appeared to him a much fitter -officer to fill that station: he was originally chosen by the people to -the Senate. - -When amendments to the constitution came to be thought of, perhaps it -would be proper to provide for this case by a special clause in it, -empowering the Electors who had chosen the President and Vice President, -in case of vacancy, to meet again, and make another choice; only, -however, for the remainder of the four years; because, at the end of -that time, the power of choosing the Electors should return to, and be -exercised by the several States. - -If the motion before the committee was negatived, he gave notice that he -would bring in his, viz: to fill up the blank with the person last -antecedently chosen President of the Senate. - -Mr. BALDWIN said, that he should vote for the present motion, because he -conceived that the constitution is express, that an officer of the -Government, designated either by the law or the constitution, should be -appointed to fill this vacancy. He stated some objections against the -Chief Justice. He is an officer who ought to be entirely detached from -all political agitations whatever--his mind ought to be kept calm and as -unembarrassed as possible. He quoted the precedent established in the -law instituting the Governor of the Western Territory--there the -Secretary is to succeed the Governor. The Secretary of State is an -Executive officer, an assistant to the President, and must be supposed, -from his situation, to be the most proper person to supply the vacancy. - -Mr. SHERMAN was of opinion, that putting the Chief Magistracy into the -hands of a subordinate officer, was by no means proper. As to the -observations made by the gentleman last up, on the arrangements in the -Government of the Western Territory, he did not think they could be -applied to the present case. That Government is a subordinate one, and a -kind of legislative power is vested in the Governor of selecting, from -the laws and regulations of the different States, such as he thought -requisite for the Government of those he had under his care. - -He was in favor of giving the supreme Executive, in case of accident, to -the President of the Senate. The Government would certainly suffer fewer -inconveniences by that arrangement than if the head of a department was -put in. The Vice President, by the constitution, succeeds to the -President--the President of the Senate to the office of the first; it is -therefore very natural that he should also exercise the duties of the -second in case of a vacancy. - -To designate any officer as possible successor to the President, would -be giving him too much dignity, and raising him, in a manner, even above -the Legislature. - -Mr. CARROLL observed, that the vacancy might happen in the recess of the -Legislature, or in the absence of the President of the Senate; the -Secretary of State would always be at the seat of Government. Besides, -the constitution declares the vacancy shall be filled by an officer of -the Government. The President of the Senate is only an officer _pro -tem_. If the framers of the constitution had intended the vacancy should -be filled by an officer named in it, they could have designated him; but -this they had not done; he therefore supposed they had in view some -officer not then in existence. - -Mr. GERRY regretted that the subject should have been taken up at this -moment, when so much important business is before Congress. He adverted -to the motion, and said, that the character which now fills the office -of Secretary of State undoubtedly possessed the confidence of the -Legislature in the fullest manner, and very justly; but when the -exigency shall arrive for which we now are about to provide, a character -may fill that office who would be a scourge to the Union. Besides, said -he, if the office of Vice President was now to be filled, the Secretary -of State would be ineligible, coming from the same State with the -President. He stated other objections from the constitution. He thought -the nomination should not be confined to officers of the United States. -He supposed the views of Government may be extended even to officers of -the several States. He, however, wished the whole business postponed; -but if this idea is overruled, he suggested the propriety of filling the -blank with the constitutional clause respecting the highest candidates -who are primarily voted for as President and Vice President. - -Mr. SMITH remarked, that there appeared to be so great a diversity of -opinion on the subject before the House, that he doubted the possibility -of procuring a majority for either of the motions that had been made. -There would be objections, he conceived, to any proposition that could -be offered; but the committee should determine on that to which there -were fewest. To the Secretary of State he thought there were less than -to any other officer proposed. Those against the Chief Justice he -thought unanswerable. Indeed, the gentleman who proposed him had not -offered any answer to the objections made to that officer. - -The duties of the President of the Senate, and those of the President of -the United States, appeared to him incompatible. The first was the -Representative of a particular State, and bound to obey the instructions -of it. If he was to be deprived of his seat in the Senate, his State -would lose a vote there, and the balance of that branch of the -Legislature would be destroyed. - -He recapitulated the objections that had already been made to the Chief -Justice's filling the chair. His power of expounding treaties would be -improperly mixed with that of making them; that of condemning for -offences, with a power of granting reprieves and pardons. Then the Chief -Justice could not act with propriety as Commander-in-Chief of the army -and navy. It had been said, he observed, that the Judiciary business -might go on for some time without the assistance of the Chief Justice. -He thought not; there were three Circuit Courts, and two Judges for -each, including the Chief Justice. If he was absent, the business of one -of the circuits could not proceed; besides, he should preside in the -Supreme Court. - -He concluded by saying, that the office of Secretary of State and the -duties of President were analogous. He was a kind of assistant to the -Chief Magistrate, and would, therefore, very properly supply his place; -besides, he was always at the seat of Government. - -Mr. BURKE said, that he had consulted a gentleman skilled in the -doctrine of chances, who, after considering the subject, had informed -him, that there was an equal chance that such a contingency would not -happen more than once in eight hundred and forty years. He hoped, -therefore, that the committee would not spend any more time upon the -subject, but postpone it altogether. - -Mr. GILES conceived, that the probability of the event taking place was -much greater than Mr. BURKE seemed to think. According to the doctrine -of politics, he said, it was not more than fifty to one that it would -not happen in two months. However, even if the chance was much less, it -was the duty of the House to make provision for the accident before it -occurred. If it was left till the case actually took place, it would -then be too late to think of remedying the evil; for it was to be -provided for by a Legislative act, which could not be made complete -without the President's approbation and signature, and could therefore -not be obtained when the chair was vacant. Then, if the event should -happen before it was provided for, there would be, he conceived, an end -to this Government. - -He used another argument to urge the necessity of a speedy provision. -Suppose, said he, the Vice President should die, then the fate of this -Government would remain in the hands of the President, who, by -resigning, would destroy its organization, without leaving a -constitutional mode of filling the vacancy. - -In addition to the loss of this Government, would not every member of -the Legislature, he asked, lose his character, credit, and reputation? - -Having shown the necessity of making immediate provision for a case of -so much importance to the very existence of the Government, Mr. GILES -declared he was in favor of filling up the blank with the Secretary of -State. He chiefly rested his opinion on the idea, that if the -constitution had not intended that the vacancy should be filled by some -officer not there mentioned, they would have determined who it should -be. - -Mr. SEDGWICK was sorry that the business had been brought forward, and -more so that gentlemen should discover a zeal on the occasion which -indicated too much of taking a personal interest in the question. - -He did not apprehend the consequences which would follow, if the -accident should occur, would be so dreadful as the gentleman last up -appeared to think. There was more danger, he conceived, in ruffling -men's tempers now, by designating one officer heir apparent (if he might -be allowed the expression) to the office of Chief Magistrate. - -He objected to filling up the blank with the Secretary of State; it -would be putting in the hands of the President (or of the Vice -President) a power of appointing his successor. The authority with which -the Chief Justice is vested, the respect which his station commands, and -his independence, induced him, he said, at first to think him the most -proper person to be at the head of affairs, in case of vacancy in the -Chief Magistracy. However, if it could not be agreed to postpone the -business, he should now vote for the President of the Senate _pro tem_. - -Mr. BENSON said, that an honorable gentleman (Mr. SMITH) had remarked -that he had not attempted to answer the objections which were made to -the Chief Justice's being designated to fill the vacancy, and had drawn -the conclusion that the objections were unanswerable. He was sensible -that there might and would be objections to any officer that could be -mentioned; but those against the Chief Justice he did not think -unanswerable. It had been objected that there would be an impropriety in -his condemning as Chief Justice, and pardoning as President. But -something like this is frequently the case. He supposed that whoever -exercised the office of Chief Magistrate would for the time resign his -first office. He only mentioned this to show that the objections made to -the Chief Justice had not been answered because they were deemed -unanswerable. But his wish was to see the vacancy filled by an -independent officer; he had, therefore, no objection to the President of -the Senate _pro tem_. - -Mr. JACKSON moved that the consideration of this business be postponed, -which was agreed to. The committee rose and reported. - - -FRIDAY, January 21. - -_Duty on Spirits._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the new Revenue Bill. - -Mr. JACKSON proposed an amendment, by adding a clause to prevent -inspectors, or any officers under them, from interfering, either -directly or indirectly, in elections, further than giving their own -votes, on penalty of forfeiting their offices. - -This being seconded, - -Mr. SHERMAN said, he should propose an addition to the amendment, and -that was to extend the prohibition to every other person whatever. He -supposed that to practise the arts of electioneering would be as -criminal in persons in general as in the officers of the revenue; but if -any provision is necessary in the case, he thought it might be made in -some other bill. - -Mr. LIVERMORE approved the motion. These officers, said he, will hold -their places under the Government, and, from the duties assigned them, -will acquire such a knowledge of persons and characters, as will give -them great advantages, and enable them to influence elections to a great -degree. He thought the proposition important, and merited the attention -of the House. - -Mr. VINING observed, that the motion went to disfranchise a great number -of citizens of the rights of suffrage. It appeared to him, also, to be -unconstitutional, as it will deprive them of speaking and writing their -minds; a right of which no law can divest them. He offered some -observations on the eligibility of the duty now contemplated, in -preference to direct taxes; and then urged the bad policy of rendering -the law odious, by fixing a stigma on the officers appointed to execute -it. - -Mr. JACKSON replied to the observations against his motion. He said the -experience of Great Britain showed the propriety of the prohibition. He -read a section from a law passed in the reign of William and Mary on the -subject. A law was found necessary in that country to prevent the -interference of excise officers in elections, though the excise law then -in existence was only for ten years, and that now before us is a -perpetual law; for it is to exist till the whole State debts are -extinguished. He denied that it was a disfranchisement of the citizens; -they will have the same right to vote at the elections as other -citizens; it only goes to defining an offence, which may be of -pernicious consequence. Did I consider it as depriving the citizens of -the rights of suffrage, I would be the last to vote for it. He adverted -particularly to the dangerous influence that some future President would -acquire, by virtue of the power which he will possess of removing these -officers. He read some clauses from the British Excise Law, to show its -resemblance to the law now under consideration. He added some strictures -on the bill, and regretted that it had not been recommitted; but to -render it less odious and mischievous he strongly urged the necessity of -the section he had proposed. - -Mr. BENSON said, there appeared to him to be an absurdity to say a man -shall forfeit an office which he holds during pleasure. - -Mr. GERRY objected to the motion, because he thought it did not go far -enough; it ought to extend to all other revenue officers. He gave a -short account of the nature of civil government; no form, said he, is -stationary, they are always verging either to Democracy or Monarchy, or -to Aristocracy and Despotism. From hence, he drew an inference favorable -to a provision which should tend to abate and lessen the influence of -the Executive power in certain cases. - -Mr. AMES objected to the motion. He said, the circumstances of this -country and Great Britain were not similar. That country is without a -constitution; the United States are blessed with one, which defines the -rights of the electors and the elected; rights of which they cannot be -deprived. The law which the gentleman referred to was not passed till -the abuses it was intended to remedy had arisen to an enormous height. -If ever there should be a necessity for a similar law in this country, -which he by no means expected, it will then be time enough to make the -regulation; but this clause will muzzle the mouths of freemen, and take -away the use of their reason. - -Mr. BLOODWORTH replied to Mr. AMES. He observed, that corruptions had -taken place; elections have been influenced, and human nature being the -same, the same evils are to be expected. He thought it would be best to -prevent the evil if possible by enacting a law in season, and not wait -till the mischief is done. - -Mr. SENEY was in favor of the clause. He thought it would be a salutary -provision, and no infringement on the rights of the people, as it would -be optional to accept the offices or not, with this restriction. - -Mr. STONE was in favor of the motion. He observed, that it was a painful -consideration that a number of citizens should be disfranchised, and -deprived of their reason and speech, but this is a dilemma to which we -shall be reduced by means of this excise law; we must either deprive the -excise officers of this privilege of interfering, or give up the freedom -of elections. - -Mr. VINING controverted the oft-repeated observation, that there was an -analogy between the two countries, Great Britain and America. He urged -an acceleration of the bill; delays he thought did not produce -conviction, they only serve to inflame; he hoped the clause would not be -agreed to, nor the bill recommitted. - -Mr. LAWRENCE was sorry that there were so many impediments thrown in the -way of this bill. He could wish that the clause might be deferred, and -made the subject of a separate discussion. He objected to it as not -extensive enough. It ought to include all the officers of the -Government. At present, he should waive any further remarks, but hoped -the motion would not be agreed to at this time, but wished that the bill -might be finished. - -Mr. SEDGWICK opposed the motion. He said, the natural tendency would be -to render the law odious; to deprive the Government of the services of -the best men in our country. Let me ask gentlemen, if they, or any of -their connections, would accept an appointment under this law, with such -an exceptionable clause in it? He observed on the total difference in -the circumstances of this country and those of Great Britain; and asked, -shall we transplant the corrupt maxims of that country to this? I hope -we shall not. - -Mr. GERRY replied to the several objections which had been offered -against the motion. It will be too late, said he, when the evil takes -place to apply the remedy. The President will then have it in his power -to influence the elections in such manner as to procure a Legislature -that would not consent to a law for applying a remedy. - -Mr. AMES reprobated the motion in very pointed terms, as impolitic in -respect to the law, as repugnant to the constitution, and as degrading -to human nature. Besides, he observed, that it was nugatory in itself, -because it goes to deprive the citizens of an inalienable right, which -you cannot take from them, nor can they divest themselves of it. - -Mr. JACKSON made a short reply to Mr. AMES. He observed, that he had -always supposed that the English nation possessed a constitution, and -that the violation of the freedom of elections was the greatest -infringement on that constitution. - -Mr. SHERMAN observed, that this motion went to create a positive -offence. He said he could not conceive any reason why this offence -should be chargeable on one description of officers only; he thought it -ought to go through, and include every class. He replied to the several -objections arising from the influence of the President; and observed, -that fixing such a stigma would oblige the President to appoint mean and -ordinary characters--characters fit to make tools of; for persons of -credit and respectability will not accept of appointments under such a -disqualification. - -The question was determined in the negative, the yeas and nays being as -follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke, - Floyd, Gerry, Grout, Hathorn, Heister, Jackson, Livermore, - Mathews, Moore, Parker, Rensselaer, Seney, Sylvester, - Stone, Tucker, and White--21. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Bourne, Cadwalader, - Carroll, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Foster, Gale, Gilman, Goodhue, - Griffin, Giles, Hartley, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, - Leonard, Madison, P. Muhlenberg, Schureman, Scott, - Sedgwick, Sevier, Sherman, Sinnickson, Smith, (of - Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Steele, Sturges, - Thatcher, Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, Williamson, and - Wynkoop--37.[38] - - -THURSDAY, January 27. - -_Duty on Spirits._ - -The engrossed bill, repealing, after the last day of June next, the -duties heretofore laid on distilled spirits imported from abroad, and -laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the -United States, and for appropriating the same, was passed by a majority -of fourteen. - -The yeas and nays being called for, were as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Bourne, Cadwalader, - Carroll, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman, - Goodhue, Griffin, Grout, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, - Leonard, Livermore, Madison, Partridge, Schureman, - Sedgwick, Sherman, Sylvester, Sinnickson, Smith (of South - Carolina), Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, - White, and Wynkoop--35. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke, - Giles, Hartley, Hathorn, Heister, Jackson, Mathews, Moore, - Muhlenberg, Parker, Van Rensselaer, Seney, Smith (of - Maryland), Steele, Stone, Tucker, and Williamson--21. - - -TUESDAY, February 1. - -_Bank of the United States._ - -The bill sent from the Senate, to incorporate the subscribers to the -Bank of the United States, was read the third time; and, the question -being on the passage of the bill, - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed, that the bill being taken up -rather unexpectedly yesterday, gentlemen did not appear prepared to -discuss the subject. It therefore was suffered to be read in Committee -of the Whole, and passed to the third reading, in his opinion, rather -informally; as the members were thereby deprived of giving their -sentiments in the usual manner on a bill of the greatest importance. He -thought it susceptible of various amendments. [The SPEAKER having -observed, that the bill, agreeably to the rules of the House, could not -be amended without being recommitted,] Mr. S. moved, that the bill -should be recommitted, for the purpose of making sundry alterations, and -removing objections which he thought the bill liable to. He then -enumerated several objections. Those who are to receive the -subscriptions, he said, by the bill, are not obliged to give any bonds -for their fidelity. He thought the clause which excludes foreigners from -voting by proxy exceptionable; and the time in which subscriptions are -to be received, he thought too contracted. - -Mr. JACKSON said he was in favor of the motion for a recommitment; but -not for the reasons offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. He was -opposed to the principle of the bill altogether. He then adverted to the -situation of the United States, and observed, that it was so different -from that of Great Britain, at the time the Bank was established in that -country, that no reason in favor of the institution can be deduced from -thence. He adverted to the arguments arising from the facility which -banks afford of anticipating the public resources in case of emergency. -This idea of anticipations he reprobated, as tending to involve the -country in debt, and an endless labyrinth of perplexities. This plan of -a National Bank, said he, is calculated to benefit a small part of the -United States, the mercantile interest only; the farmers, the yeomanry, -will derive no advantage from it; as the bank bills will not circulate -to the extremities of the Union. He said he had never seen a bank bill -in the State of Georgia, nor will they ever benefit the farmers of that -State, or of New Hampshire. He urged that there was no necessity for -instituting a new bank. There is one already established in this city, -under the style of the Bank of North America. This proposed institution -is an infringement of the charter of that bank, which cannot be -justified. He urged the unconstitutionality of the plan; called it a -monopoly; such a one as contravenes the spirit of the constitution; a -monopoly of a very extraordinary nature; a monopoly of the public moneys -for the benefit of the corporation to be created. He then read several -passages from the _Federalist_, which he said were directly contrary to -the assumption of the power proposed by the bill. He hoped, therefore, -that it would be recommitted; and he could not help hoping, also, that -it would be deferred to the next session. - -Mr. LAWRENCE observed, that the friends of the institution proposed had -been unjustly charged with precipitating the bill; but, he said, it had -long been in the hands of the members; they have had time to consider -it; the usual forms have been observed in its progress thus far; and if -those who are opposed to the bill did not see proper to come forward -with their objections, it surely is their own fault, and the advocates -of the bill are not justly chargeable with precipitancy. He then -particularly replied to the objections offered by Mr. SMITH, of South -Carolina; and after considering them, said, that those objections did -not, in his opinion, constitute sufficient reason to induce a -recommitment of the bill. He then noticed the constitutional objections -of Mr. JACKSON, and said, the Government of the United States is vested -by the constitution with a power of borrowing money; and in pursuance of -this idea, they have a right to create a capital, by which they may, -with greater facility, carry the power of borrowing on any emergency -into effect. Under the late Confederation, the Pennsylvania Bank, called -the Bank of North America, was instituted. He presumed that it will not -be controverted, that the present Government is vested with powers equal -to those of the late Confederation. He said, that he had no doubt its -operation would benefit, not only the centre, but the extremities also -of the Union. The commercial, mechanical, and agricultural interests of -the United States are so combined, that one cannot be benefited without -benefiting the other. He concluded by observing, that he thought the -Legislature of the United States could not better answer the purposes of -their appointment, than by passing this bill. He hoped, therefore, that -it would not be recommitted, but that it would now pass. - -Mr. LEE observed, that having been confined by sickness, he was -precluded from attending the House yesterday; but sick as he was, had he -supposed that there was a prospect of a bill of such magnitude and -importance passing without a discussion of its principles, he certainly -would have attended, and offered his objections to various parts of it, -which he thought very exceptionable. He hoped, therefore, it would now -be recommitted; that a bill which is so unequal and so partial may -undergo a thorough discussion. - -Mr. TUCKER was in favor of a recommitment. He acknowledged that those -who had their objections to the bill were certainly blamable for not -coming forward with them yesterday. He then stated sundry objections to -the bill. The time allowed to receive the subscriptions, he said, is too -short, and will benefit those only in the vicinity of the Bank. The -clause which authorizes the loaning of one hundred thousand dollars to -the Government, without express provision by law, he thought -exceptionable, as the Executive will be able, by this means, to borrow -at any time, without being authorized, to almost any amount, of the -Bank. The loan of two millions of dollars by the United States to the -Bank, he objected to; as diverting that sum from the particular object -for which it was borrowed. There is no appropriation, he said, of the -half yearly dividend of profits accruing to the United States, which, he -observed, was a very essential defect. Mr. T. stated other objections, -as reasons for a recommitment. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of the recommitment, to give those who say -they have not had an opportunity of offering their objections, time to -do it; and if the motion be not agreed to, he should not give his vote -for the bill. He then adverted to the objections deduced from the -constitution, and explained the clause respecting monopolies as -referring altogether to commercial monopolies. - -Mr. SHERMAN objected to the recommitment. He said, that though the bill -could not be amended without its being recommitted, yet it was open to -discussion and objection previous to taking a vote on its passage. He -did not think the objections offered afforded sufficient reasons for a -recommitment. He replied to the observations offered by several -gentlemen who had spoken in favor of the motion. - -Mr. GERRY expressed his surprise at the observations of gentlemen who -had neglected to offer their objections to the bill before, and said it -could only be imputed to their own neglect, and not to any precipitancy -on the part of the friends of the bill. Mr. G. noticed several -objections which had been offered, and said, if nothing more important -could be offered, he thought it would be unjustifiable in the House to -go into a committee. - -Mr. MADISON observed, that at this moment it was not of importance to -determine how it has happened that the objections which several -gentlemen now say they have to offer against the bill were not made at -the proper time. It is sufficient for them, if the candor of the House -should lead them now to recommit the bill, that in a Committee of the -Whole they may have an opportunity of offering their objections. - -Mr. AMES replied to Mr. MADISON. He said, he did not conceive that the -appeal now made to the candor of the House was in point. The gentlemen -who object to the bill had an opportunity to offer their objections; -the customary forms have been attended to; and the whole question for -the recommitment turns on the force of the objections which are now -offered to the general principles of the bill altogether. The candor of -the House, he conceived, was entirely out of the question, and therefore -not to be appealed to; but the justice due to their constituents in the -proper discharge of the duty reposed in them. He said, it appeared to -him absurd to go into Committee of the Whole to determine whether the -bill is constitutional or not. If it is unconstitutional, that amounts -to a rejection of it altogether. - -Mr. MADISON thought there was the greatest propriety in discussing a -constitutional question in Committee of the Whole. - -Mr. STONE and Mr. GILES were in favor of the recommitment. They objected -to the unconstitutionality of the bill, and to several of its particular -clauses. - -Mr. VINING said, he thought it was a subject of congratulation that the -bill was in its present situation; it had happily passed to the third -reading without that tedious discussion which bills usually receive. The -subject has been a considerable time before the House, and gentlemen -have had time to contemplate it. The bill is now in the stage to which -gentlemen very usually reserve themselves to state their objections at -large, and he hoped they would now do it. He was not perfectly satisfied -as to the constitutional point. He therefore hoped gentlemen would state -their objections, that those who are satisfied on that point may offer -their reasons. - -Mr. BOUDINOT stated the process of the business yesterday. He observed -that he had then the honor to be in the chair. He had read the bill very -distinctly and deliberately, with proper pauses; he thought that the -fullest opportunity had been offered for gentlemen to come forward with -their objections. He was opposed to the recommitment, as it would, he -feared, issue in a defeat of the bill this session. He had one -difficulty, however, respecting the unconstitutionality of the bill, -which he hoped to have removed; and he hoped that a full discussion of -its general principles would take place. - -The motion for a recommitment was lost, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Bourne, Brown, - Burke, Carroll, Contee, Gale, Grout, Giles, Jackson, Lee, - Madison, Mathews, Moore, Parker, Smith, (of Maryland,) - Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Tucker, White, and - Williamson--23. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Cadwalader, Clymer, - Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Hartley, - Hathorn, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Leonard, Livermore, - Muhlenberg, Partridge, Rensselaer, Schureman, Scott, Seney, - Sherman, Sylvester, Sinnickson, Steele, Sturges, Thatcher, - Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, and Wynkoop--34. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 2. - -_Bank of the United States._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the bill sent from the Senate to -incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States. - -The bill being on its passage, - -Mr. MADISON began with a general review of the advantages and -disadvantages of banks. The former he stated to consist in, first, the -aid they afford to merchants, who can thereby push their mercantile -operations further with the same capital. Second, The aids to merchants -in paying punctually the customs. Third, Aids to the Government in -complying punctually with its engagements, when deficiencies or delays -happen in the revenue. Fourth, In diminishing usury. Fifth, In saving -the wear of gold and silver kept in the vaults, and represented by -notes. Sixth, In facilitating occasional remittances from different -places where notes happen to circulate. - -The effect of the proposed Bank, in raising the value of stock, he -thought had been greatly overrated. It would no doubt raise that of the -stock subscribed into the Bank; but could have little effect on stock in -general, as the interest on it would remain the same, and the quantity -taken out of the market would be replaced by bank stock. - -The principal disadvantages consisted in, first, banishing the precious -metals, by substituting another medium to perform their office. This -effect was inevitable. It was admitted by the most enlightened patrons -of banks, particularly by _Smith on the Wealth of Nations_. The common -answer to the objection was, that the money banished was only an -exchange for something equally valuable that would be imported in -return. He admitted the weight of this observation in general; but -doubted whether, in the present habits of this country, the returns -would not be in articles of no permanent use to it. - -Second. Exposing the public and individuals to all the evils of a run on -the Bank, which would be particularly calamitous in so great a country -as this, and might happen from various causes, as false rumors, bad -management of the institution, an unfavorable balance of trade from -short crops, &c. - -It was proper to be considered, also, that the most important of the -advantages would be better obtained by several banks, properly -distributed, than by a single one. The aids to commerce could only be -afforded at or very near the seat of the Bank. The same was true of aids -to merchants in the payment of customs. Anticipations of the Government -would also be most convenient at the different places where the interest -of the debt was to be paid. The case in America was different from that -in England: the interest there was all due at one place, and the genius -of the Monarchy favored the concentration of wealth and influence at the -metropolis. - -He thought the plan liable to other objections. It did not make so good -a bargain for the public as was due to its interests. The charter to the -Bank of England had been granted for eleven years only, and was paid for -by a loan to the Government on terms better than could be elsewhere got. -Every renewal of the charter had, in like manner, been purchased; in -some instances, at a very high price. The same had been done by the -banks of Genoa, Naples, and other like banks of circulation. The plan -was unequal to the public creditors; it gave an undue preference to the -holders of a particular denomination of the public debt, and to those at -and within reach of the seat of Government. If the subscriptions should -be rapid, the distant holders of evidences of debt would be excluded -altogether. - -In making these remarks on the merits of the bill, he had reserved to -himself the right to deny the authority of Congress to pass it. He had -entertained this opinion from the date of the constitution. His -impression might, perhaps, be the stronger, because he well recollected -that a power to grant charters of incorporation had been proposed in the -General Convention and rejected. - -Is the power of establishing an incorporated bank among the powers -vested by the constitution in the Legislature of the United States? This -is the question to be examined. - -After some general remarks on the limitations of all political power, he -took notice of the peculiar manner in which the Federal Government is -limited. It is not a general grant, out of which particular powers are -excepted; it is a grant of particular powers only, leaving the general -mass in other hands. So it had been understood by its friends and its -foes, and so it was to be interpreted. - -As preliminaries to a right interpretation, he laid down the following -rules: - -An interpretation that destroys the very characteristic of the -Government cannot be just. - -Where a meaning is clear, the consequences, whatever they may be, are to -be admitted--where doubtful, it is fairly triable by its consequences. - -In controverted cases, the meaning of the parties to the instrument, if -to be collected by reasonable evidence, is a proper guide. - -Contemporary and concurrent expositions are a reasonable evidence of the -meaning of the parties. - -In admitting or rejecting a constructive authority, not only the degree -of its incidentality to an express authority is to be regarded, but the -degree of its importance also; since on this will depend the probability -or improbability of its being left to construction. - -Reviewing the constitution with an eye to these positions, it was not -possible to discover in it the power to incorporate a bank. The only -clauses under which such a power could be pretended, are either: - -1. The power to lay and collect taxes to pay the debts, and provide for -the common defence and general welfare; or, - -2. The power to borrow money on the credit of the United States; or, - -3. The power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into -execution those powers. - -The bill did not come within the first power. It laid no tax to pay the -debts, or provide for the general welfare. It laid no tax whatever. It -was altogether foreign to the subject. - -No argument could be drawn from the terms "common defence and general -welfare." The power as to these general purposes was limited to acts -laying taxes for them; and the general purposes themselves were limited -and explained by the particular enumeration subjoined. To understand -these terms in any sense that would justify the power in question, would -give to Congress an unlimited power; would render nugatory the -enumeration of particular powers; would supersede all the powers -reserved to the State Governments. These terms are copied from the -Articles of Confederation; had it ever been pretended that they were to -be understood otherwise than as here explained? - -It had been said, that "general welfare" meant cases in which a general -power might be exercised by Congress, without interfering with the -powers of the States; and that the establishment of a National Bank was -of this sort. There were, he said, several answers to this novel -doctrine. - -1. The proposed Bank would interfere, so as indirectly to defeat a State -Bank at the same place. - -2. It would directly interfere with the rights of the States to prohibit -as well as to establish Banks, and the circulation of bank notes. He -mentioned a law in Virginia actually prohibiting the circulation of -notes payable to bearer. - -3. Interference with the power of the States was no constitutional -criterion of the power of Congress. If the power was not given, Congress -could not exercise it; if given, they might exercise it, although it -should interfere with the laws, or even the constitution of the States. - -4. If Congress could incorporate a bank merely because the act would -leave the States free to establish banks also, any other incorporations -might be made by Congress. They could incorporate companies of -manufacturers, or companies for cutting canals, or even religious -societies, leaving similar incorporations by the States, like State -Banks, to themselves. Congress might even establish religious teachers -in every parish, and pay them out of the Treasury of the United States, -leaving other teachers unmolested in their functions. These inadmissible -consequences condemned the controverted principle. - -The case of the Bank established by the former Congress had been cited -as a precedent. This was known, he said, to have been the child of -necessity. It never could be justified by the regular powers of the -Articles of Confederation. Congress betrayed a consciousness of this in -recommending to the States to incorporate the Bank also. They did not -attempt to protect the bank notes by penalties against counterfeiters. -These were reserved wholly to the authority of the States. - -The second clause to be examined is that which empowers Congress to -borrow money. - -Is this bill to borrow money? It does not borrow a shilling. Is there -any fair construction by which the bill can be deemed an exercise of the -power to borrow money? The obvious meaning of the power to borrow money, -is that of accepting it from, and stipulating payment to those who are -able and willing to lend. - -To say that the power to borrow involves a power of creating the -ability, where there may be the will, to lend, is not only establishing -a dangerous principle, as will be immediately shown, but is as forced a -construction as to say that it involves the power of compelling the -will, where there may be the ability to lend. - -The third clause is that which gives the power to pass all laws -necessary and proper to execute the specified powers. - -Whatever meaning this clause may have, none can be admitted, that would -give an unlimited discretion to Congress. - -Its meaning must, according to the natural and obvious force of the -terms and the context, be limited to means necessary to the end, and -incident to the nature of the specified powers. - -The clause is in fact merely declaratory of what would have resulted by -unavoidable implication, as the appropriate, and, as it were, technical -means of executing those powers. In this sense it has been explained by -the friends of the constitution, and ratified by the State conventions. - -The essential characteristic of the Government, as composed of limited -and enumerated powers, would be destroyed, if, instead of direct and -incidental means, any means could be used, which, in the language of the -preamble to the bill, "might be conceived to be conducive to the -successful conducting of the finances, or might be conceived to tend to -give facility to the obtaining of loans." He urged an attention to the -diffuse and ductile terms which had been found requisite to cover the -stretch of power contained in the bill. He compared them with the terms -necessary and proper, used in the constitution, and asked whether it was -possible to view the two descriptions as synonymous, or the one as a -fair and safe commentary on the other. - -If, proceeded he, Congress, by virtue of the power to borrow, can create -the means of lending, and, in pursuance of these means, can incorporate -a bank, they may do any thing whatever creative of like means. - -The East India Company has been a lender to the British Government, as -well as the Bank, and the South Sea Company is a greater creditor than -either. Congress, then, may incorporate similar companies in the United -States, and that too not under the idea of regulating trade, but under -that of borrowing money. - -Private capitals are the chief resources for loans to the British -Government. Whatever then may be conceived to favor the accumulation of -capitals may be done by Congress. They may incorporate manufacturers. -They may give monopolies in every branch of domestic industry. - -If, again, Congress, by virtue of the power to borrow money, can create -the ability to lend, they may, by virtue of the power to levy money, -create the ability to pay it. The ability to pay taxes depends on the -general wealth of the society, and this, on the general prosperity of -agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. Congress then may give bounties -and make regulations on all of these objects. - -The States have, it is allowed on all hands, a concurrent right to lay -and collect taxes. This power is secured to them, not by its being -expressly reserved, but by its not being ceded by the constitution. The -reasons for the bill cannot be admitted, because they would invalidate -that right; why may it not be conceived by Congress, that a uniform and -exclusive imposition of taxes, would not less than the proposed Banks -"be conducive to the successful conducting of the national finances, and -tend to give facility to the obtaining of revenue, for the use of the -Government?" - -The doctrine of implication is always a tender one. The danger of it has -been felt in other Governments. The delicacy was felt in the adoption of -our own; the danger may also be felt if we do not keep close to our -chartered authorities. - -Mark the reasoning on which the validity of the bill depends! To borrow -money is made the end, and the accumulation of capitals implied as the -means. The accumulation of capitals is then the end, and a bank implied -as the means. The bank is then the end, and a charter of incorporation, -a monopoly, capital punishments, &c., implied as the means. - -If implications thus remote and thus multiplied, can be linked together, -a chain may be formed that will reach every object of legislation, every -object within the whole compass of political economy. - -The latitude of interpretation required by the bill is condemned by the -rule furnished by the constitution itself. - -Congress have power "to regulate the value of money;" yet it is -expressly added, not left to be implied, that counterfeiters may be -punished. - -They have the power "to declare war," to which armies are more incident -than incorporated banks to borrowing; yet the power "to raise and -support armies" is expressly added; and to this again, the express power -"to make rules and regulations for the government of armies;" a like -remark is applicable to the powers as to the navy. - -The regulation and calling out of the militia are more appertinent to -war than the proposed Bank to borrowing; yet the former is not left to -construction. - -The very power to borrow money is a less remote implication from the -power of war, than an incorporated monopoly bank from the power of -borrowing; yet, the power to borrow is not left to implication. - -It is not pretended that every insertion or omission in the constitution -is the effect of systematic attention. This is not the character of any -human work, particularly the work of a body of men. The examples cited, -with others that might be added, sufficiently inculcate, nevertheless, a -rule of interpretation very different from that on which the bill rests. -They condemn the exercise of any power, particularly a great and -important power, which is not evidently and necessarily involved in an -express power. - -It cannot be denied that the power proposed to be exercised is an -important power. - -As a charter of incorporation, the bill creates an artificial person, -previously not existing in law. It confers important civil rights and -attributes which could not otherwise be claimed. It is, though not -precisely similar, at least equivalent, to the naturalization of an -alien, by which certain new civil characters are acquired by him. Would -Congress have had the power to naturalize, if it had not been expressly -given? - -In the power to make by-laws, the bill delegated a sort of Legislative -power, which is unquestionably an act of a high and important nature. He -took notice of the only restraint on the by-laws, that they were not to -be contrary to the law and the constitution of the Bank, and asked what -law was intended; if the law of the United States, the scantiness of -their code would give a power never before given to a corporation, and -obnoxious to the States, whose laws would then be superseded, not only -by the laws of Congress, but by the by-laws of a corporation within -their own jurisdiction. If the law intended was the law of the State, -then the State might make laws that would destroy an institution of the -United States. - -The bill gives a power to purchase and hold lands; Congress themselves -could not purchase lands within a State "without the consent of its -Legislature." How could they delegate a power to others which they did -not possess themselves? - -It takes from our successors who have equal rights with ourselves, and -with the aid of experience will be more capable of deciding on the -subject, an opportunity of exercising that right for an immoderate term. - -It takes from our constituents the opportunity of deliberating on the -untried measure, although their hands are also to be tied by it for the -same term. - -It involves a monopoly, which affects the equal rights of every citizen. - -It leads to a penal regulation, perhaps capital punishments, one of the -most solemn acts of sovereign authority. - -From this view of the power of incorporation exercised in the bill, it -could never be deemed an accessory or subaltern power, to be deduced by -implication as a means of executing another power; it was in its nature -a distinct, an independent and substantive prerogative, which not being -enumerated in the constitution, could never have been meant to be -included in it, and not being included could never be rightfully -exercised. - -He here adverted to a distinction, which he said had not been -sufficiently kept in view, between a power necessary and proper for the -Government or Union, and a power necessary and proper for executing the -enumerated powers. In the latter case, the powers included in the -enumerated powers were not expressed, but to be drawn from the nature of -each. In the former, the powers composing the Government were expressly -enumerated. This constituted the peculiar nature of the Government; no -power, therefore, not enumerated could be inferred from the general -nature of Government. Had the power of making treaties, for example, -been omitted, however necessary it might have been, the defect could -only have been lamented, or supplied by an amendment of the -constitution. - -But the proposed Bank could not even be called necessary to the -Government: at most it could be but convenient. Its uses to the -Government could be supplied by keeping the taxes a little in advance; -by loans from individuals; by the other banks, over which the Government -would have equal command; nay greater, as it might grant or refuse to -these the privilege (a free and irrevocable gift to the proposed Bank) -of using their notes in the Federal revenue. - -He proceeded next to the contemporary expositions given to the -constitution. - -The defence against the charge founded on the want of a bill of rights -presupposed, he said, that the powers not given were retained; and that -those given were not to be extended by remote implications. On any other -supposition, the power of Congress to abridge the freedom of the press, -or the rights of conscience, &c., could not have been disproved. - -The explanations in the State Conventions all turned on the same -fundamental principle, and on the principle that the terms necessary and -proper gave no additional powers to those enumerated. - -[Here he read sundry passages from the Debates of the Pennsylvania, -Virginia, and North Carolina Conventions, showing the grounds on which -the constitution had been vindicated by its principal advocates, against -a dangerous latitude of its powers, charged on it by its opponents.] - -He did not undertake to vouch for the accuracy or authenticity of the -publications which he quoted. He thought it probable that the -sentiments delivered might, in many instances, have been mistaken, or -imperfectly noted; but the complexion of the whole, with what he himself -and many others must recollect, fully justified the use he had made of -them. - -The explanatory declarations and amendments accompanying the -ratifications of the several States formed a striking evidence, wearing -the same complexion. He referred those who might doubt on the subject, -to the several acts of ratification. - -The explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves, at least, -would be good authority with them; all these renunciations of power -proceeded on a rule of construction, excluding the latitude now -contended for. These explanations were the more to be respected, as they -had not only been proposed by Congress, but ratified by nearly -three-fourths of the States. He read several of the articles proposed, -remarking particularly on the 11th and 12th; the former, as guarding -against a latitude of interpretation; the latter, as excluding every -source of power not within the constitution itself. - -With all this evidence of the sense in which the constitution was -understood and adopted, will it not be said, if the bill should pass, -that its adoption was brought about by one set of arguments, and that it -is now administered under the influence of another set? and this -reproach will have the keener sting, because it is applicable to so many -individuals concerned in both the adoption and administration. - -In fine, if the power were in the constitution, the immediate exercise -of it cannot be essential; if not there, the exercise of it involves the -guilt of usurpation, and establishes a precedent of interpretation -levelling all the barriers which limit the powers of the General -Government, and protect those of the State Governments. If the point be -doubtful only, respect for ourselves, who ought to shun the appearance -of precipitancy and ambition; respect for our successors, who ought not -lightly to be deprived of the opportunity of exercising the rights of -legislation; respect for our constituents, who have had no opportunity -of making known their sentiments, and who are themselves to be bound -down to the measure for so long a period; all these considerations -require that the irrevocable decision should at least be suspended until -another session. - -It appeared on the whole, he concluded, that the power exercised by the -bill was condemned by the silence of the constitution; was condemned by -the rule of interpretation arising out of the constitution; was -condemned by its tendency to destroy the main characteristic of the -constitution; was condemned by the expositions of the friends of the -constitution, whilst depending before the public; was condemned by the -apparent intention of the parties which ratified the constitution; was -condemned by the explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves -to the constitution; and he hoped it would receive its final -condemnation by the vote of this House. - - -THURSDAY, February 3. - -_Bank of the United States._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the bill sent from the Senate, to -incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States. - -A motion was made by Mr. WILLIAMSON to recommit the bill, for the -purpose of amending the first section by prolonging the time for -receiving subscriptions from October to April; this motion occasioned -some debate, and was determined in the negative; the yeas and nays being -as follow: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke, Carroll, - Contee, Gale, Giles, Grout, Jackson, Lee, Madison, Mathews, - Moore, Sevier, Smith, (of South Carolina,) Steele, Stone, - Tucker, White, and Williamson--21. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Bourne, Cadwalader, - Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Griffin, - Hartley, Hathorn, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Leonard, - Livermore, Muhlenberg, Parker, Partridge, Rensselaer, - Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Smith, (of - Maryland,) Sylvester, Sinnickson, Sturges, Thatcher, - Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, and Wynkoop--38. - -Mr. AMES.--Little doubt remains with respect to the utility of banks. It -seems to be conceded within doors and without, that a public bank would -be useful to trade, that it is almost essential to revenue, and that it -is little short of indispensably necessary in times of public emergency. -In countries whose forms of government left them free to choose, this -institution has been adopted of choice, and in times of national danger -and calamity, it has afforded such aid to Government as to make it -appear, in the eyes of the people, a necessary means of -self-preservation. The subject, however intricate in its nature, is at -last cleared from obscurity. It would not be difficult to establish its -principles, and to deduce from its theory such consequences as would -vindicate the policy of the measure. But why should we lose time to -examine the theory when it is in our power to resort to experience? -After being tried by that test, the world has agreed in pronouncing the -institution excellent. This new capital will invigorate trade and -manufactures with new energy. It will furnish a medium for the -collection of the revenues; and if Government should be pressed by a -sudden necessity, it will afford seasonable and effectual aid. With all -these and many other pretensions, if it was now a question whether -Congress should be vested with the power of establishing a bank, I trust -that this House and all America would assent to the affirmative. - -This, however, is not a question of expediency, but of duty. We are not -at liberty to examine which of several modes of acting is entitled to -the preference. But we are solemnly warned against acting at all. We are -told that the constitution will not authorize Congress to incorporate -the subscribers to the bank. Let us examine the constitution, and if -that forbids our proceeding, we must reject the bill; though we shall do -it with deep regret that such an opportunity to serve our country must -be suffered to escape for the want of a constitutional power to improve -it. - -The gentleman from Virginia considers the opposers of the bill as -suffering disadvantage, because it was not debated as bills usually are -in the Committee of the Whole. He has prepared us to pronounce a -eulogium upon his consistency by informing us that he voted in the old -Congress against the Bank of North America, on the ground of his present -objection to the constitutionality. He has told us that the meaning of -the constitution is to be interpreted by contemporaneous testimony. He -was a member of the Convention which formed it, and of course his -opinion is entitled to peculiar weight. While we respect his former -conduct, and admire the felicity of his situation, we cannot think he -sustains disadvantage in the debate. Besides, he must have been prepared -with objections to the constitutionality, because he tells us they are -of long standing, and had grown into a settled habit of thinking. Why, -then, did he suffer the bill to pass the committee in silence? The -friends of the bill have more cause to complain of disadvantage; for -while he has had time to prepare his objections, they are obliged to -reply to them without premeditation. - -In making this reply I am to perform a task for which my own mind has -not admonished me to prepare. I never suspected that the objections I -have heard stated had existence; I consider them as discoveries; and had -not the acute penetration of that gentleman brought them to light, I am -sure that my own understanding would never have suggested them. - -It seems strange, too, that in our enlightened country the public should -have been involved in equal blindness. While the exercise of even the -lawful powers of Government is disputed, and a jealous eye is fixed on -its proceedings, not a whisper has been heard against its authority to -establish a bank. Still, however unseasonably, the old alarm of public -discontent is sounded in our ears. - -Two questions occur; may Congress exercise any powers which are not -expressly given in the constitution, but may be deduced by a reasonable -construction of that instrument? And, secondly, will such a construction -warrant the establishment of the Bank? - -The doctrine that powers may be implied which are not expressly vested -in Congress has long been a bugbear to a great many worthy persons. They -apprehend that Congress, by putting constructions upon the constitution, -will govern by its own arbitrary discretion; and therefore that it ought -to be bound to exercise the powers expressly given, and those only. - -If Congress may not make laws conformably to the powers plainly implied, -though not expressed in the frame of Government, it is rather late in -the day to adopt it as a principle of conduct. A great part of our two -years' labor is lost, and worse than lost to the public, for we have -scarcely made a law in which we have not exercised our discretion with -regard to the true intent of the constitution. Any words but those used -in that instrument will be liable to a different interpretation. We may -regulate trade; therefore we have taxed ships, erected light-houses, -made laws to govern seamen, &c., because we say that they are the -incidents to that power. The most familiar and undisputed acts of -legislation will show that we have adopted it as a safe rule of action, -to legislate beyond the letter of the constitution. - -He proceeded to enforce this idea by several considerations, and -illustrated it by various examples. He said, that the ingenuity of man -was unequal to providing, especially beforehand, for all the -contingencies that would happen. The constitution contains the -principles which are to govern in making laws; but every law requires an -application of the rule to the case in question. We may err in applying -it; but we are to exercise our judgments, and on every occasion to -decide according to an honest conviction of its true meaning. - -The danger of implied power does not arise from its assuming a new -principle; we have not only practised it often, but we can scarcely -proceed without it; nor does the danger proceed so much from the extent -of the power as from its uncertainty. While the opposers of the Bank -exclaim against the exercise of this power by Congress, do they mark out -the limits of the power which they will leave to us, with more certainty -than is done by the advocates of the Bank? Their rules of interpretation -by contemporaneous testimony, the debates of conventions, and the -doctrine of substantive and auxiliary powers, will be found as obscure, -and of course as formidable, as that which they condemn; they only set -up one construction against another. - -The powers of Congress are disputed. We are obliged to decide the -question according to truth. The negative, if false, is less safe than -the affirmative, if true. Why, then, shall we be told that the negative -is the safe side? Not exercising the powers we have, may be as -pernicious as usurping those we have not. If the power to raise armies -had not been expressed in the enumeration of the powers of Congress, it -would be implied from other parts of the constitution. Suppose, however, -that it were omitted, and our country invaded, would a decision in -Congress against raising armies be safer than the affirmative? The blood -of our citizens would be shed, and shed unavenged. He thought, -therefore, that there was too much prepossession with some against the -Bank, and that the debate ought to be considered more impartially, as -the negative was neither more safe, certain, nor conformable to our duty -than the other side of the question. After all, the proof of the -affirmative imposed a sufficient burden, as it is easier to raise -objections than to remove them. Would any one doubt that Congress may -lend money, that they may buy their debt in the market, or redeem their -captives from Algiers? Yet no such power is expressly given, though it -is irresistibly implied. - -If, therefore, some interpretation of the constitution must be indulged, -by what rules is it to be governed? The great end of every association -of persons or States is to effect the end of its institution. The matter -in debate affords a good illustration: a corporation, as soon as it is -created, has certain powers, or qualities, tacitly annexed to it, which -tend to promote the end for which it was formed; such as, for example, -its individuality, its power to sue and be sued, and the perpetual -succession of persons. Government is itself the highest kind of -corporation; and from the instant of its formation, it has tacitly -annexed to its being, various powers which the individuals who framed it -did not separately possess, but which are essential to its effecting the -purposes for which it was framed; to declare, in detail, every thing -that Government may do could not be performed, and has never been -attempted. It would be endless, useless, and dangerous; exceptions of -what it may not do are shorter and safer. - -Congress may do what is necessary to the end for which the constitution -was adopted, provided it is not repugnant to the natural rights of man, -or to those which they have expressly reserved to themselves, or to the -powers which are assigned to the States. This rule of interpretation -seems to be safe, and not a very uncertain one, independently of the -constitution itself. By that instrument certain powers are specially -delegated, together with all powers necessary or proper to carry them -into execution. That construction may be maintained to be a safe one -which promotes the good of society, and the ends for which the -Government was adopted, without impairing the rights of any man, or the -powers of any State. - -This, he said, was remarkably true of the Bank; no man could have cause -to complain of it; the bills would not be forced upon any one. It is of -the first utility to trade. Indeed, the intercourse from State to State -can never be on a good footing without a bank, whose paper will -circulate more extensively than that of any State bank. Whether the -power to regulate trade from State to State will involve that of -regulating inland bills of exchange and bank paper, as the instruments -of the trade, and incident to the power, he would not pause to examine. -This is an injury and wrong which violates the right of another. As the -bank is founded on the free choice of those who make use of it, and is -highly useful to the people and to Government, a liberal construction is -natural and safe. This circumstance creates a presumption in favor of -its conformity to the constitution. This presumption is enforced by the -necessity of a bank to other governments. The most orderly governments -in Europe have banks. They are considered as indispensably necessary; -these examples are not to be supposed to have been unnoticed. We are to -pay the interest of our debt in thirteen places. Is it possible to -transport the revenue from one end of the continent to the other? Nay, a -week before the quarter's interest becomes due, transfers will be made -which will require double the sum in Boston which was expected. To guard -against this danger, an extra sum must be deposited at the different -loan offices. This extra sum is not to be had; our revenue is barely -equal to the interest due. This imposes an absolute necessity upon the -Government to make use of a bank. The answer is, that the State banks -will supply this aid. This is risking a good deal to the argument -against the Bank; for will they admit the necessity, and yet deny to the -Government the lawful and only adequate means for providing for it? Ten -of the States have no banks; those who have may abolish theirs, and -suffer their charters to expire. But the State banks are insufficient to -the purpose; their paper has not a sufficient circulation; of course -their capitals are small. Congress is allowed to have complete -legislative power over its own finances; and yet without the courtesy of -the States it cannot be exercised. This seems to be inconsistent. - -If a war should suddenly break out, how is Congress to provide for it? -Perhaps Congress would not be sitting; great expenses would be incurred; -and they must be instantly provided for. How is this to be done? By -taxes? And will the enemy wait till they can be collected? By loans at -home? Our citizens would employ their money in war speculations, and -they are not individually in a condition to lend a sufficient sum in -specie. Or shall we send across the sea for loans? The dispute between -England and Spain furnishes an example; the aid of their banks for -several millions was prompt and effectual. Or, will you say that -Congress might issue paper money? That power, ruinous and fallacious as -it is, is deduced from implication, for it is not expressly given. A -bank only can afford the necessary aid in time of sudden emergency. If -we have not the power to establish it, our social compact is incomplete, -we want the means of self-preservation. - -I shall, perhaps, be told that necessity is the tyrant's plea. I answer -that it is a miserable one when it is urged to palliate the violation of -private right. Who suffers by this use of our authority? Not the States, -for they are not warranted to establish a National Bank; not -individuals, for they will be assisted in trade, and defended from -danger by it. - -Having endeavored to enforce his argument, by noticing the uses of banks -to trade, to revenue, to credit, and, in cases of exigency, he adverted -to the authority of our own precedents. Our right to govern the Western -Territory is not disputed. It is a power which no State can exercise; it -must be exercised, and therefore it resides in Congress. But how does -Congress get this power? It is not expressly given in the constitution, -but is derived either from the nature of the case, or by implication -from the power to regulate the property of the United States. If the -power flows from the nature and necessity of the case, it may be -demanded, is the renot equal authority for the Bank? If it is derived -from the power of Congress to regulate the territory and other property -of the United States, and to make all needful rules and regulations -concerning it, and for the disposal of it, a strict construction would -restrain Congress merely to the management and disposal of property, and -of its own property; yet it is plain that more is intended. Congress has -accordingly made rules, not only for governing its own property, but the -property of the persons residing there. It has made rules which have no -relation to property at all--for punishing crimes. In short, it -exercises all power in that territory. Nay, it has exercised this very -power of creating a corporation. The government of that territory is a -corporation; and who will deny that Congress may lawfully establish a -bank beyond the Ohio? It is fair to reason by analogy from a power which -is unquestionable, to one which is the subject of debate. - -He then asked, whether it appeared, on this view of the subject, that -the establishment of a National Bank would be a violent -misinterpretation of the constitution? He did not contend for an -arbitrary, unlimited discretion in the Government to do every thing. He -took occasion to protest against such a misconception of his argument. -He had noticed the great marks by which the construction of the -constitution, he conceived, must be guided and limited; and these, if -not absolutely certain, were very far from being arbitrary or unsafe. It -is for the House, to judge whether the construction which denies the -power of Congress is more definite and safe. - -In proving that Congress may exercise powers which are not expressly -granted by the constitution, he had endeavored to establish such rules -of interpretation, and had illustrated his ideas by such observations as -would anticipate, in a considerable degree, the application of his -principles to the point in question. Before he proceeded to the -construction of the clauses of the constitution which apply to the -argument, lie observed that it would be proper to notice the qualities -of a corporation, in order to take a more exact view of the controversy. - -He adverted to the individuality and the perpetuity of a corporation, -and that the property of the individuals should not be liable for the -debts of the bank or company. These qualities are not more useful to the -corporation than conformable to reason; but Government, it is said, -cannot create these qualities. This is the marrow of the argument; for -Congress may set up a bank of its own, to be managed as public property, -to issue notes which shall be received in all payments at the Treasury, -which shall be exchangeable into specie on demand, and which it shall -be death to counterfeit. Such a bank would be less safe and useful than -one under the direction of private persons; yet the power to establish -it is indisputable. If Congress has the authority to do this business -badly, the question returns, whether the powers of a corporation, which -are essential to its being well done, may be annexed as incident to it. -The Bank of New York is not a corporation, yet its notes have credit. -Congress may agree with that bank, or with a company of merchants, to -take their notes, and to cause all payments to pass through their -coffers. Every thing that Government requires, and the bank will -perform, may be lawfully done without giving them corporate powers; but -to do this well, safely, and extensively, those powers are -indispensable. This seems to bring the debate within a very narrow -compass. - -This led him to consider whether the corporate powers are incidental to -those which Congress may exercise by the constitution. - -He entered into a discussion of the construction of that clause which -empowers Congress to regulate the territory and other property of the -United States. The United States may hold property; may dispose of it; -they may hold it in partnership; they may regulate the terms of the -partnership. One condition may be, that the common stock only shall be -liable for the debts of the partnership, and that any purchaser of a -share shall become a partner. These are the chief qualities of a -corporation. It seems that Congress, having power to make all needful -rules and regulations for the property of the United States, may -establish a corporation to manage it: without which we have seen that -the regulations cannot be either safe or useful; the United States will -be the proprietor of one-tenth of the bank stock. - -Congress may exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over -the ten miles square, and the places ceded by the States for arsenals, -light-houses, docks, &c. Of course it may establish a bank in those -places with corporate powers. The bill has not restrained the bank to -this city; and if it had, the dispute would lose a part of its -solemnity. If, instead of principles, it concerns only places, what -objection is there to the constitutional authority of Congress to fix -the Bank at Sandy Hook, or Reedy Island, where we have light-houses, and -a right of exclusive legislation? A bank established there, or in the -district located by law on the Potomac for the seat of Government, could -send its paper all over the Union; it is true that the places are not -the most proper for a bank; but the authority to establish it in them -overthrows the argument which is deduced from the definite nature of the -powers vested in Congress, and the dangerous tendency of the proposed -construction of them. - -The preamble of the constitution warrants this remark, that a bank is -not repugnant to the spirit and essential objects of that instrument. - -He then considered the power to borrow money. He said it was natural to -understand that authority as it was actually exercised in Europe; which -is, to borrow of the bank. He observed, the power to borrow was of -narrow use without the institution of a bank; and in the most dangerous -crisis of affairs would be a dead letter. - -After noticing the power to lay and collect taxes, he adverted to the -sweeping clause, as it is usually called, which empowers Congress to -exercise all powers necessary and proper to carry the enumerated powers -into execution. He did not pretend that it gives any new powers; but it -establishes the doctrine of implied powers. He then demanded whether the -power to incorporate a bank is not fairly relative, and a necessary -incident to the entire powers to regulate trade and revenue, and to -provide for the public credit and defence. - -He entered into a particular answer to several objections, and after -recapitulating his argument, he concluded with observing that we had -felt the disadvantages of the Confederation. We adopted the -constitution, expecting to place the national affairs under a Federal -head; this is a power which Congress can only exercise. We may reason -away the whole constitution. All nations have their times of adversity -and danger; the neglect of providing against them in season may be the -cause of ruining the country. - - -FRIDAY, February 4. - -_Bank of the United States._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the bill for incorporating the -Bank of the United States. - -The question being on the passage of the bill, - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, he would endeavor not to fatigue the patience of the -House in the observations he should make on the important subject now -under consideration. Without entering into the discussion on a scale so -extensive as had been indulged by some gentlemen, he would dwell only on -a few important principles, and such consequences as were conclusively -deducible from them, which had made a strong impression on his own mind. -The opposition to the bill had called in question the constitutional -powers of Congress to establish the proposed corporation, and the -utility of banks, neither of which till within a few days did he suppose -was doubted by any intelligent man in America; and had charged the -present system with holding out unequal terms against the Government to -those who should subscribe to the proposed stock. - -With regard to the question of constitutionality, much had been said -which, in his opinion, had not an intimate relation to the subject now -before the House. We have with great earnestness been warned of the -danger of grasping power by construction and implication; and this -warning has been given in very animated language by the gentleman from -Virginia (Mr. MADISON.) I do not wish to deprive that member of the -honor of consistency; but I well remember the time when the energy of -his reasoning impressed on the minds of the majority of this House a -conviction that the power of removal from office, holden at pleasure, -was, by construction and implication, vested by the constitution in the -President; for there could be no pretence that it is expressly granted -to him. - -He would only observe, in answer to every thing which had been said of -the danger of extending construction and implication, that the whole -business of legislation was a practical construction of the powers of -the Legislature; and that probably no instrument for the delegation of -power could be drawn with such precision and accuracy as to leave -nothing to necessary implication. That all the different Legislatures in -the United States had, and this, in his opinion, indispensably must -construe the powers which had been granted to them, and they must assume -such auxiliary powers as are necessarily implied in those which are -expressly granted. In doing which, it was no doubt their duty to be -careful not to exceed those limits to which it was intended they should -be restricted. By any other limitation the Government would be so -shackled that it would be incapable of producing any of the effects -which were intended by its institution. - -He observed, that on almost all the great and important measures which -come under the deliberation of Congress there were immense difficulties -to be surmounted. If we attempt, said he, to proceed in one direction, -our ears are assailed with the exclamation of "the constitution is in -danger!" if we attempt to attain our objects by pursuing a different -course, we are told the pass is guarded by the stern spirit of -democracy. Did I concur with gentlemen in opinion on this subject, I -should think it my duty to go home to my constituents, and honestly -declare to them that by their jealousy of power they had so restrained -the operations of the Government that we had not the means of effecting -any of the great purposes for which the constitution was designed, -without attempting, what perhaps would be found impracticable, to fix by -general rules the nice point within which Congress would be authorized -to assume powers by construction and implication, and beyond which they -may be justly considered as usurpers. - -He wished gentlemen to reflect what effect a single principle, -universally acknowledged, would have in determining the question now -under consideration. It is universally agreed that wherever a power is -delegated for express purposes, all the known and usual means for the -attainment of the objects expressed are conceded also. That to decide -what influence this acknowledged principle would have on the subject -before the House, it would be necessary to reflect on the powers with -which Congress are expressly invested. He then repeated that Congress -was authorized to lay and collect taxes, to borrow money on the credit -of the United States, to raise and support armies, provide and maintain -navies, to regulate foreign and domestic trade, and to make all laws -necessary and proper to carry these and the other enumerated powers into -effect. They were, in fine, intrusted with the exercise of all those -powers which the people of America thought necessary to secure their -fame and happiness against the attacks of internal violence and external -invasion; and in the exercise of those powers, the Legislature was -authorized, agreeably to the principle which he had mentioned, to employ -all the known and usual means necessary and proper to effectuate the -ends which are expressed. It might be of use to determine with precision -what was the meaning of the words _necessary_ and _proper_--they did not -restrict the power of the Legislature to enacting such laws only as are -indispensable. Such a construction would be infinitely too narrow and -limited; and, to apply the meaning strictly, it would prove, perhaps, -that all the laws which had been passed were unconstitutional; for few, -if any of them, could be proved indispensable to the existence of the -Government. The conduct of Congress had a construction on those words -more rational and consistent with common sense and the purposes for -which the Government was instituted; which he conceived to be that the -laws should be established on such principles, and such an agency in the -known and usual means employed in the execution of them, as to effect -the ends expressed in the constitution with the greatest possible degree -of public utility. - -If banks were among the known and usual means to effectuate or -facilitate the ends which had been mentioned, to enable the Government, -with the greatest ease and least burden to the people, to collect taxes, -borrow money, regulate commerce, raise and support armies, provide and -maintain fleets, he thought the argument irrefragable and conclusive to -prove the constitutionality of the bill. Pursuing further the same idea, -he asked for what purposes were banks instituted and patronized by -Governments which were unrestricted by constitutional limitations? Were -they not employed as the means and the most useful engines to facilitate -the collection of taxes, borrowing money, and the other enumerated -powers? Besides, he said, it was to be observed that the constitution -had expressly declared the ends of legislation; but in almost every -instance had left the means to the honest and sober discretion of the -Legislature. From the nature of things this must ever be the case; for -otherwise the constitution must contain not only all the necessary laws -under the existing circumstances of the community, but also a code so -extensive as to adapt itself to all future possible contingencies. By -our constitution, Congress has not only the power to lay and collect -taxes, but to do every thing subordinate to that end; the objects, the -means, the instruments, and the purposes, are left to the honest and -sober discretion of the Legislature. The power of borrowing money was -expressly granted; but all the known and usual means to that end were -left in silence. The same observations might with truth be made -respecting the other delegated powers. The great ends to be obtained as -means to effectuate the ultimate end--the public good and general -welfare--are capable, under general terms, of constitutional -specification; but the subordinate means are so numerous, and capable of -such infinite variation, as to render an enumeration impracticable, and -must therefore be left to construction and necessary implication. He -said, on this ground, he was willing to leave the general argument; it -was simple, intelligible, and he hoped would be thought conclusive. - -He said the constitutionality had been attacked from another quarter. It -was said, we could not give commercial advantages to one port above -another. The constitutional provision which had been quoted was -undoubtedly intended to prevent a partial regulation of commerce; if -extended to the case under consideration, it would much more strongly -prove that Congress ought not to reside in any commercial city; for he -verily believed that the commercial advantages of Philadelphia were -incomparably greater from that residence than they could be supposed -from the institution of a National Bank. Indeed, it was his opinion -that, considering that this city had a bank, the capital of which was -adequate to all her commercial exigencies; that she could enlarge that -capital as her necessity should require; and that her bank will, if this -bill should be rejected, receive the benefit of national operations, the -measure will not advance her individual interest. - -With regard to the utility of banks, he observed that he would not -attempt to display a knowledge of the subject by repeating all he had -read and heard in relation to it, nor fatigue the House by a detail of -his own reflections and reasoning upon it; the causes were unnecessary -to be explained; the effects had been such in all countries where banks -had been instituted, as to produce a unanimous opinion that they were -alike useful for all the great purposes of Government, and to promote -the general happiness of the people. Nor was our own experience wanting -to the same purpose. At a time when our public resources were almost -annihilated, our credit prostrate, our Government imbecile, and its -patronage inconsiderable, a bank of small capital was among the most -operative causes which produced that first dawn that ultimately -terminated in meridian splendor by the establishment of peace, -independence, and freedom. There were two circumstances which he would -take the liberty to mention, which would render banks of more importance -in this country than in any other country where they are at present in -use: the first, the commercial enterprise of our merchants compared -with the smallness of their capitals, which, as we had no large -manufacturing capitals, whereby the precious metals could be retained in -circulation, would frequently, by their exportation, greatly distress -the people; the other originated from a measure of the Government. -Congress, from a laudable intention of accommodating their constituents, -instituted Treasuries in all the States; in some of these there would -be, in the ordinary course of events, a deficiency, and in others a -redundancy. To keep them in equilibrium by the transportation of the -precious metals, or by the purchase of bills in the market, would be not -only inconvenient and expensive, but would keep out of circulation a -considerable part of the medium of the country. - -Gentlemen had been pleased to consider the proposed terms as giving an -undue advantage to the stockholders. He would leave this part of the -subject to gentlemen who better understood it; only observing, that as -Government must rely principally on merchants to obtain the proposed -stock, it would be necessary to afford to them sufficient motives to -withdraw from their commercial pursuits a part of their capitals. - -He would attempt an answer to some of those desultory objections which -had been made, and in doing this, he would omit to answer such as had -been, in his opinion, already refuted. He observed, that it had been -said that granting charters of incorporation was a high prerogative of -Government. He supposed it was not intended that it was, in the nature -of things, too transcendent a power to be exercised by a National -Government, but that the exercise of it should only be in consequence of -express delegation. Let this objection be compared with the conduct of -Congress on another subject, in all respects at least as important. -There is not, by the constitution, any power expressly delegated to -mortgage our revenues, and yet, without any question being made on the -constitutionality of the measure, we have mortgaged them to an immense -amount. From whence, he asked, do we acquire the authority to exercise -this power? Not from express grants, but being empowered to borrow money -on the credit of the United States, we have very properly considered the -pledging funds as among the known and usual means necessary and proper -to be employed for the attainment of the end expressly delegated. - -It has been said that the bill authorized the stockholders to purchase -real estate. He considered the provision in the bill in that regard, not -a grant, but a limitation of power. Any man, or body of men, might, by -the existing laws, purchase, in their own private capacities, real -estate to any amount. This right was limited as it respected the -proposed corporation. - -It is said there are banks already, and therefore the proposed -incorporation is unnecessary. To this he answered, that if the -Government should agree to receive all its demands in the paper of the -existing banks, it would give to them every advantage which, in the -opinion of gentlemen, renders the present system objectionable, without -stipulating for any equivalent to the Government. But are, he asked, -gentlemen serious in these observations? Do they believe the capitals of -those banks adequate to the exigencies of the nation? Do they believe -that those banks possess any powers by which they can give a projectile -force to their paper, so as to extend its circulation throughout the -United States? Or do they really wish to have the Government repose -itself on institutions with which they have no intimate connection, and -over which they have no control? - -Mr. S. concluded by observing he was very confident a majority of the -House could never be induced to believe that it was the intention of the -constitution to deprive the Legislature of one of the most important and -necessary means of executing the powers expressly delegated. - -Mr. LAWRENCE.--The advocates of this measure stand in an unfortunate -situation; for being those who in general advocate national measures, -they are charged with designs to extend the powers of the Government -unduly. He, however, consoled himself with a conscious attachment to the -constitution, and with the reflection that their conduct received the -approbation of their constituents. If the present be contrasted with the -former circumstances of this country, he doubted not the measures of -this Government would continue to receive the approbation of the people -of the United States. - -The silence of the people on the subject now before the House is -strongly presumptive that the measure of the Bank is not considered by -them as unconstitutional. He then endeavored to show the -constitutionality of the bank system. It must be conceded that there is -nothing in the constitution that is expressly against it, and therefore -we ought not to deduce a prohibition by construction; he adverted to the -amendment proposed by Congress to the constitution, which says, "powers -not delegated are retained;" here, said he, to prove that the Bank is -unconstitutional, the constructive interpretation so much objected -against is recurred to. - -The great objects of this Government are contained in the context of the -constitution. He recapitulated those objects, and inferred that every -power necessary to secure these must necessarily follow; for as to the -great objects for which this Government was instituted, it is as full -and complete in all its parts as any system that could be devised; a -full, uncontrollable power to regulate the fiscal concerns of this -Union, is a primary consideration in this Government, and from hence it -clearly follows that it must possess the power to make every possible -arrangement conducive to that great object. - -He then adverted to the late Confederation, and pointed out its defects -and incompetency; and hence the old Congress called on the States to -enact certain laws which they had not power to enact; from hence he -inferred, that as the late Confederation could not pass those laws, and -to capacitate the Government of the United States, and form a more -perfect union, the constitution under which we now act was formed. To -suppose that this Government does not possess the powers for which the -constitution was adopted, involves the grossest absurdity. - -The deviation from charters, and the infringement of parchment rights, -which had been justified on the principle of necessity by the gentleman -from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) he said had been made on different -principles from those now mentioned; the necessity, he contended, did -not at the time exist; the old Congress exercised the power, as they -thought, by a fair construction of the Confederation. - -On constructions, he observed, it was to be lamented that they should -ever be necessary; but they had been made; he instanced the power of -removability, which had been an act of the three branches, and has not -been complained of. It was at least as important a one as the present. - -But the construction now proposed, he contended, was an easy and natural -construction. Recurring to the collection law, he observed, that it was -by construction that the receipts are ordered to be made in gold and -silver. - -With respect to creating a mass of capital, he supposed just and upright -national measures would create a will to form this capital. - -Adverting to the idea that Congress has not the power to establish -companies with exclusive privileges, he observed, that by the amendments -proposed by New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, it plainly -appears that these States considered that Congress does possess the -power to establish such companies. - -The constitution vests Congress with power to dispose of certain -property in lands, and to make all useful rules and regulations for that -purpose; can its power be less over one species of its own property than -over another? - -With respect to giving preference to one State over another, he -observed, that ten years hence the seat of Government is to be on the -Potomac, and wherever the Government is finally settled, the place will -enjoy superior advantages; but still the Government must go thither, and -the places not enjoying those advantages must be satisfied. - -It is said we must not pass a problematical bill, which is liable to a -supervision by the Judges of the Supreme Court; but he conceived there -was no force in this, as those judges are invested by the Constitution -with a power to pass their judgment on all laws that may be passed. - -It is said that this law may interfere with the State Governments; but -this may or may not be the case; and in all interference of the kind the -particular interest of a State must give way to the general interest. - -With respect to the corporation possessing the power of passing laws, -this, he observed, is a power incidental to all corporations; and in -the instance of the Western Territory, Congress have exercised the power -of instituting corporations or bodies politic, to the greatest possible -extent. - -He defended the right of Congress to purchase and possess property, and -quoted a passage in the Constitution to show that they possess this -right. - -He then touched on the expediency of banks, and of that proposed in -particular. The advantages generally derived from these institutions, he -believed, applied peculiarly to this country. He noticed the objection -from banks banishing the specie; he said the surplus only would be sent -out of the country; but is it given away? No, sir, it is sent off for -articles which are wanted, and which will enrich the country. - -With respect to a run on the Bank, he mentioned the circumstances under -which those runs on the British banks, which had been noticed, took -place; and showed there was no parallel that would probably ever take -place in this country. - -For several particulars he showed that the objection which arose from -the United States not having a good bargain by the system was not well -founded. He then mentioned the peculiar advantages which the United -States will enjoy over common subscribers. - -The objection from banks being already established in the several States -he obviated by stating the mischiefs which might arise from an ignorance -of the situation of those banks; and concluded by some remarks on the -inexpediency of the General Government having recourse to institutions -of merely a local nature. - -Mr. JACKSON said, that having been the person who brought forward the -constitutional objection against the bill, he thought himself bound to -notice the answers which had been offered to that objection. Newspaper -authorities, said he, have been alluded to, and their silence on the -subject considered as indicating the approbation of the people. He would -meet the gentlemen on that ground; and, though he did not consider -newspapers as an authority to be depended on, yet if opinions through -that channel were to be regarded, he would refer the gentlemen to those -of this city; the expediency and constitutionality of the bill have been -called in question by the newspapers of this city. - -The latitude contended for in constructing the constitution on this -occasion he reprobated very fully. If the sweeping clause, as it is -called, extends to vesting Congress with such powers, and necessary and -proper means are an indispensable implication in the sense advanced by -the advocates of the bill, we shall soon be in possession of all -possible powers, and the charter under which we sit will be nothing but -a name. - -This bill will essentially interfere with the rights of the separate -States, for it is not denied that they possess the power of instituting -banks; but the proposed corporation will eclipse the Bank of North -America, and contravene the interests of the individuals concerned in -it. - -He then noticed the several arguments drawn from the doctrine of -implication; the right to incorporate a National Bank has been adduced -from the power to raise armies; but he presumed it would not be -contended that this is a bill to provide for the national defence. Nor -could such a power, in his opinion, be derived from the right to borrow -money. It has been asked what the United States could do with the -surplus of their revenue without the convenience of a bank in which to -deposit it with advantage? For his part, though he wished to anticipate -pleasing occurrences, he did not look forward to the time when the -General Government would have this superabundance at its disposal. The -right of Congress to purchase and hold lands has been urged to prove -that they can transfer this power; but the General Government is -expressly restricted in the exercise of this power; the consent of the -particular State to the purchase for particular purposes only is -requisite; these purposes are designated, such as building light-houses, -erecting arsenals, &c. - -It has been said that banks may exist without a charter; but that this -incorporation is necessary in order that it may have a hold on the -Government. Mr. J. strongly reprobated this idea. He was astonished to -hear such a declaration, and hoped that such ideas would prevent a -majority of the House from passing a bill that would thus establish a -perpetual monopoly; we have, said he, I believe, a perpetual debt; I -hope we shall not have a perpetual corporation. What was it drove our -forefathers to this country? Was it not the ecclesiastical corporations -and perpetual monopolies of England and Scotland? Shall we suffer the -same evils to exist in this country instead of taking every possible -method to encourage the increase of emigrants to settle among us? For if -we establish the precedent now before us, there is no saying where it -will stop. - -The power to regulate trade is said to involve this as a necessary -means; but the powers consequent on this express power are specified, -such as regulating light-houses, ships, harbors, &c. It has been said -that Congress has borrowed money; this shows that there is no necessity -of instituting any new bank, those already established having been found -sufficient for the purpose. He denied the right of Congress to establish -banks at the permanent seat of Government, or on those sandheaps -mentioned yesterday; for if they should, they could not force the -circulation of their paper one inch beyond the limits of those places. -But it is said, if Congress can establish banks in those situations, the -question becomes a question of place, and not of principle; from hence -it is inferred that the power may be exercised in any other part of the -United States. This appeared to him to involve a very dangerous -construction of the powers vested in the General Government. - -Adverting to the powers of Congress in respect to the finances of the -Union, he observed that those powers did not warrant the adoption of -whatever measures they thought proper. The constitution has restricted -the exercise of those fiscal powers; Congress cannot lay a poll tax, nor -impose duties on exports; yet these undoubtedly relate to the finances. - -The power exercised in respect to the Western Territory, he observed, -had reference to property already belonging to the United States; it -does not refer to property to be purchased, nor does it authorize the -purchase of any additional property; besides, the powers are express and -definite, and the exercise of them in making needful rules and -regulations in the government of that Territory does not interfere with -the rights of any of the respective States. - -Mr. J. denied the necessity of the proposed institution; and noticing -the observation of Mr. AMES, that it was dangerous on matters of -importance not to give an opinion, observed that be could conceive of no -danger that would result from postponing that construction of the -constitution now contended for to some future Congress, who, when the -necessity of a banking institution shall be apparent, will be as -competent to the decision as the present House. - -Alluding to the frequent representations of the flourishing condition of -the country, he inferred that this shows the necessity of the proposed -institution does not exist at the present time; why, then, should we be -anticipating for future generations? State banks he considered -preferable to a National Bank, as counterfeits can be detected in the -States; but if you establish a National Bank, the checks will be found -only in the city of Philadelphia or Conococheague. He passed a eulogium -on the Bank of Pennsylvania; the stockholders, said he, are not -speculators; they have the solid coin deposited in their vaults. - -He adverted to the preamble and context of the constitution, and -asserted that this context is to be interpreted by the general powers -contained in the instrument. Noticing the advantages which it had been -said would accrue to the United States from the Bank, he asked, is the -United States going to commence stockjobbing? The "general welfare" are -the two words that are to involve and justify the assumption of every -power. But what is this general welfare? It is the welfare of -Philadelphia, New York, and Boston; for as to the States of Georgia and -New Hampshire, they may as well be out of the Union for any advantages -they will receive from the institution. He reprobated the idea of the -United States deriving any emolument from the Bank, and more especially -he reprobated the influence which it was designed the Government should -enjoy by it. He said the Banks of Venice and Amsterdam were founded on -different principles. In the famous Bank of Venice, though the -Government holds no shares, yet it has at command five millions of -ducats; but the United States were to be immediately concerned in -theirs, and become stockholders. - -The Bank of Amsterdam was under the entire direction of the -burgomasters, who alone had the power of making by-laws for its -regulation. This power, by the bill, was given up by Government, very -improperly he thought, and was to be exercised by the stock-jobbers. - -The French Bank, he added, was first established upon proper principles -and flourished, but afterwards became a royal bank; much paper was -introduced, which destroyed the establishment, and was near oversetting -the Government. - -The facility of borrowing he deprecated; it will involve the Union in -irretrievable debts; the facility of borrowing is but another name for -anticipation, which will in its effects deprive the Government of the -power to control its revenues; they will be mortgaged to the creditors -of the Government. Let us beware of following the example of Great -Britain in this respect. He said, undue advantages had been taken in -precipitating the measure, and the reasonable proposition respecting the -State debts is not admitted. This I consider as partial and unjust. - -A gentleman from Virginia has well observed that we appear to be divided -by a geographical line; not a gentleman scarcely to the eastward of a -certain line is opposed to the Bank, and where is the gentleman to the -southward that is for it? This ideal line will have a tendency to -establish a real difference. He added a few more observations, and -concluded by urging a postponement, if any regard was to be had to the -tranquillity of the Union. - -Mr. BOUDINOT said he meant to confine himself to two or three great -points on which the whole argument appeared to him to rest. He -considered the objections to the bill as pointed against its -constitutionality and its expediency. It was essential, he observed, -that every member should be satisfied, as far as possible, of the first; -for however expedient it might be, if it was clearly unconstitutional, -the bill should never receive the sanction of the representatives of the -people. He would, in a great measure, refer its expediency, if -constitutional, to the experience of every gentleman of the House, as -the most satisfactory proof on that head, and he conceived there was no -need of much argument in support of its decision. The first question -then was, is Congress vested with a power to grant the privileges -contained in the bill? This is denied, and ought to be proved. In order -to show in what manner this subject had struck his mind, he first laid -down these principles: - -Whatever power is exercised by Congress must be drawn from the -constitution; either from the express words or apparent meaning, or from -a necessary implication arising from the obvious intent of the framers. - -That whatever powers (vested heretofore in any individual State) not -granted by this instrument, are still in the people of such State, and -cannot be exercised by Congress. That whatever implication destroys the -principle of the constitution ought to be rejected. That in construing -an instrument, the different parts ought to be so expounded as to give -meaning to every part which will admit of it. - -Having stated these preliminaries, Mr. B. proceeded to inquire what were -the powers attempted to be exercised by this bill? For, until the powers -were known, the question of constitutionality could not be determined. - -By it Congress was about to exercise the power of incorporating certain -individuals, thereby establishing a banking company for successfully -conducting the finances of the nation. - -The next inquiry is, what rights will this company enjoy in this new -character, that they do not enjoy independent of it? Every individual -citizen had an undoubted right to purchase and hold property, both real -and personal, to any amount whatever; to dispose of this property to -whom and on what terms he pleased; to lend his money on legal interest -to any person willing to take the same; and indeed to exercise every -power over his property that was contained in the bill. Individual -citizens, then, having these powers, might also associate together in -company or copartnership, and jointly exercising the same rights, might -hold lands in joint tenancy, or as tenants in common, to any amount -whatever; might put any sum of money into joint stock; might issue their -notes to any amount; might make by-laws or articles of copartnership for -their own government; and, finally, might set up a bank to any amount, -however great, and no authority in the Government could legally -interfere with the exercise of these rights. The great difference -between this private association of citizens, in their individual -capacities, and the company to be created by this bill, and which is -held up in so dangerous a light, is, that the one exposes the company to -the necessity of using each individual's name in all their transactions; -suits must be brought in all their names; deeds must be taken and given -in like manner; each one in his private estate is liable for the default -of the rest; the death of a member dissolves the partnership as to him; -and for want of a political existence the union may be dissolved by any -part of its members, and of course many obvious inconveniences must be -suffered merely of an official kind. By the bill these difficulties are -to be removed by conveying three qualities to them. - -1st. Individuality, or constituting a number of citizens into one legal -artificial body, capable by a fictitious name of exercising the rights -of an individual. - -2d. Irresponsibility in their individual capacity, not being answerable -beyond the joint capital. - -3d. Durability, or a political existence for a certain time, not to be -affected by the natural death of its members. - -These are the whole of the powers exercised, and the rights conveyed. It -is true these are convenient and advantageous to the company, but of -trifling importance when considered as a right of power exercised by a -National Legislature for the benefit of the Government. Can it be of any -importance to the State whether a number of its citizens are considered, -in legal contemplation, as united in an individual capacity, or -separately as so many individuals, especially if the public weal is -thereby promoted? By their irresponsibility being known, every person -dealing with them gives his tacit consent to the principle, and it -becomes part of the contract. And by political duration their powers and -abilities are limited, and their rights restricted, so as to prevent any -danger that might arise from the exercise of their joint natural right, -not only as to the amount of their capital, but as to the by-laws they -may make for their government. - -A private bank could make contracts with the Government, and the -Government with them, to all intents and purposes, as great and -important as a public bank, would their capital admit of it; though they -would not possess such qualities as to justify the confidence of -Government, by depending on them in a time of danger and necessity. This -might put it in the power of any individuals to injure the community in -its essential interests by withdrawing the capital when most needed. To -prevent this, and many other inconveniences, it is necessary that a bank -for the purposes of Government should be a legally artificial body, -possessing the three qualities above mentioned. - -Mr. B. then took up the constitution, to see if this simple power was -not fairly to be drawn by necessary implication from those vested by -this instrument in the legislative authority of the United States. It -sets out in the preamble with declaring the general purposes for which -it was formed: "The insurance of domestic tranquillity, provision for -the common defence, and promotion of the general welfare." These are the -prominent features of this instrument, and are confirmed and enlarged by -the specific grants in the body of it, where the principles on which the -Legislature should rest after their proceedings are more fully laid -down, and the division of power to be exercised by the general and -particular Governments distinctly marked out. By the 8th section, -Congress has power "to levy taxes, pay debts, provide for the common -defence and general welfare, declare war, raise and support armies, -provide for and maintain a navy;" and as the means to accomplish these -important ends, "to borrow money," and finally, "to make all laws -necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." -Let us, then, inquire, is the constituting a public bank necessary to -these important and essential ends of Government? If so, the right to -exercise the power must be in the supreme Legislature. - -He argued that the power was not contained in express words, but that -it was necessarily deduced by the strongest and most decisive -implication, because he contended that it was a necessary means to -attain a necessary end. Necessary implication had led Congress under the -power to lay and collect impost and taxes, to establish officers for the -collection, to inflict penalties against those who should defraud the -revenue, to oblige vessels to enter at one port and deliver in another; -subjected them to various ceremonies in their proceedings, for which the -owners were made to pay; and he conceived that it was not so great an -exertion of power by implication to incorporate a company for the -purpose of a bank. He also deduced the right from the power of paying -debts, raising armies, providing for the general welfare and common -defence, for which they were to borrow money. All these necessarily -include the right of using every proper and necessary means to -accomplish these necessary ends. It is certain, he said, that money must -be raised from the people. This could not be done in sums sufficient for -the exigencies of Government in a country where the precious metals were -as scarce as in this. The people in general are poor when compared with -European nations; they have a wilderness to subdue and cultivate; taxes -must be laid with prudence, and collected with discretion; the -anticipation of the revenues, therefore, by borrowing money, becomes -absolutely necessary. If so, then as the constitution had not specified -the manner of borrowing, or from whom the loan was to be obtained, the -supreme Legislature of the Union were at liberty, it was their duty, to -fix on the best mode of effecting the purposes of their appointment. For -it was a sound principle, that when a general power is granted, and the -means are not specified, they are left to the discretion of those in -whom the trust is reposed, provided they do not adopt means expressly -forbidden. The public defence, or general welfare, resting on the annual -supplies from uncertain revenues, would expose the very existence of the -community. It is the duty of those to whom the people have committed -this power to prepare in time of peace for the necessary defence in a -time of war. The United States are now happily in a state of peace; but -it was impossible for any one to say how long it would continue. By -prudent management it might be long preserved; but this prudence -consisted in being always found in a state of preparation to defend our -country. - -The constitution contemplates this very duty by authorizing Congress to -provide for the common defence by borrowing money. Why borrow money? Are -not the annual revenues sufficient? It might be so, if nothing was to be -attended to but internal wants; but the common defence and general -welfare loudly call for that provision which will produce a constant -guard on external enemies and internal insurrections. To this necessary -end it becomes Congress to provide that the necessary means may be -always at hand, by being able to arm their citizens and provide their -support while engaged in the defence of their common country. This can -be done only by borrowing money, which is usually of citizens or -foreigners; if of the first, it must be from individuals or from private -banks: will it be prudent to trust to either? Loans from individuals -were attempted during the war, when patriotism produced a will in some -lenders, and others were glad to get rid of a depreciating paper -currency almost on any terms whatever. - -But even these loans, arising from this paper medium with which the -market was glutted, were altogether insufficient; and by one change of -circumstances every hope was precluded of being any way successful in -procuring money from that source. The circumstances of individuals, too, -in this country are such, when compared with the wants of a nation, as -to render the source too vague and uncertain to rely upon; and it would -be a most improvident execution of the powers granted for the express -purpose of the common defence and general welfare. Private banks are -almost as inadequate to the object, and for reasons already given, were -neither to be depended on for will or capital as to the supply for the -principal wants of Government. They are generally established for -commercial purposes, and on capitals not always sufficient for them. If -they should be prevailed upon at any time to attempt to supply the -demands of a nation at war, it must be from a general combination of -their whole stocks, to the destruction of the original designs of their -several institutions. This ought not to be expected; for as far as it -goes to the depression of the mercantile interests, so far it is -injurious to the Government; besides, a dependence upon such a -combination would be impolitic, both from its slowness and uncertainty. -The votes of a few individuals affected by local, selfish, or adverse -politics, might endanger the whole people. Such a dependence ought not -to be attributed to the wise framers of the constitution, neither does -the language warrant it. But foreign loans have been mentioned, as a -proper source for this purpose. The imprudence of placing the common -defence of a nation on the will of those who have no interest in its -welfare is a good answer to this observation. Would it be prudent to -trust a foreigner, perhaps a rival, if not an enemy, with your supply of -what has emphatically been called the sinews of war? Would it not expose -us to exorbitant demands, and often a refusal? Many adventitious -circumstances of a war, increasing demands from all quarters, scarcity -of coin, and difficulty of communication, as well as the intrigues of -courts, all loudly oppose the measure, as contrary to the spirit and -meaning of a provision for the common defence and general welfare. The -only resort then, he conceived, was by a timely provision to secure -institutions at home from which loans might be obtained at all times on -moderate terms, and to such amount as the necessity of the State might -require. But gentlemen say that the constitution does not expressly -warrant the establishment of such a corporation. If by _expressly_, -express words are meant, it is agreed that there are no express words; -and this is the case with most of the powers exercised by Congress; for -if the doctrine of necessary implication is rejected, he did not see -what the supreme Legislature of the Union could do in that character. If -this power is not clearly given in the constitution by necessary -implication, then is a necessary end proposed and directed, while the -common and usual necessary means to attain that end are refused, or at -least not granted. - -Mr. B. was firmly of opinion that a National Bank was the necessary -means, without which the end could not be obtained. Theory proved it so -in his opinion, and the experience of the Union in a day of distress had -fully confirmed the theory. The struggles of the friends of freedom -during the late contest had nearly been rendered abortive for want of -this aid. That danger which was then so hardly avoided became a solemn -memento to this House to provide against a similar case of necessity. -This was the time to do it with advantage, being in such profound peace. -He had not heard any argument by which it was proved that individuals, -private banks, or foreigners, could with safety and propriety be -depended on as the efficient and necessary means for so important a -purpose. Although money was at present plentiful in Europe, and might be -borrowed on easy terms, it might not be so to-morrow, in case a war -should break out, and our necessities become pressing. He again -enumerated the harmless qualities with which it was proposed to vest the -bank corporation, by the bill on the table, for the important purposes -of the common defence and general welfare. Gentlemen had not yet pointed -out any danger arising to the community, neither did he think it -possible that any could ever be mentioned equal to those of suffering -the Government to depend on individuals or private banks for loans in a -day of distress. - -But it was said that this bill gave the corporation a right to hold real -property in a State, which Congress had no power to do. The terms of the -bill are misapprehended; this is a right which has been already shown, -attaches to the citizens individually, or in their associated capacity; -the bill, therefore, does no more than to vest a number with an -artificial single capacity under a fictitious name, and by that name to -hold lands, make by-laws, &c.; all which they might have done before as -citizens in a collective capacity. So far from giving a new power, their -original individual rights are limited for the public safety as to the -amount of their stock and the duration of their existence. - -Mr. B. then proceeded to cite numerous instances of powers exercised by -Congress during the last two years, deduced under the constitution by -necessary implication, to show the utter impossibility of carrying any -one provision of that authority into execution for the benefit of the -people without this reasonable latitude of construction. He also -adverted to some instances of the like conduct under the former -Confederation. It had been urged that the new Congress had no rights or -powers but what had been vested in and given to them by the individual -States, and therefore they could not accept a cession from Great Britain -by the treaty of peace of the lands extending to the Lake of the Woods, -because not before included in any individual State. Every member was -soon convinced of the absurdity of the argument, and by a necessary -implication established the power of the Confederated Legislature. -During the war the Commander-in-chief gave a passport to a British -officer to transmit clothing to the British prisoners at Lancaster. He -accordingly conveyed a very large quantity of British goods into -Pennsylvania for that purpose; which being directly against an express -law of that State, they were seized and condemned by the proper -magistrate. On a complaint to the Legislature of the State, they -referred the same to their Judicial officers, upon whose report (that -Congress being vested with the power of declaring war, the right of -giving safe passports to an enemy was necessarily implied, which, -therefore, was duly exercised by their Commander-in-chief, though no -express power was given to him for that purpose) the Legislature -declared their law directing the condemnation of the goods void _ab -initio_, and the judgment of condemnation had no effect. - -This was also the rule that governed this House with regard to the -removability of officers by the President, and the authority given to a -Council to legislate for the Western Territory. In fine, he concluded, -that it was universally understood that whenever a general power was -given, especially to a supreme Legislature, every necessary means to -carry it into execution were necessarily included. This was the common -sense of mankind, without which it would require a multitude of volumes -to contain the original powers of an increasing Government that must -necessarily be changing its relative situation every year or two. - -If power was given to raise an army, the making provision for all the -necessary supplies and incidental charges was included. If a navy was to -be formed, the manning and supplying the warlike stores are necessarily -included. If a power is given to borrow money, a right to mortgage or -pledge the public property to secure the repayment is understood to be -vested in the borrower. Take up the present statute book, and every page -will afford evidence of this doctrine. Examine the law with regard to -crimes and punishments; under the power of establishing courts, we have -implied the power of punishing the stealing and falsifying the records, -and ascertained the punishment of perjury, bribery, and extortion. Under -the power of regulating trade, we have accepted cessions of real estate, -and built light-houses, piers, &c. All this is under the doctrine of -necessary implication for the public good; and in cases not so strong as -the present, and on the exercise of which no gentleman thought proper to -start this objection. - -This construction appears so natural and necessary, that the good sense -of every gentleman on the floor has hitherto led him to proceed on this -principle ever since we began to legislate; what principle of the -constitution does it destroy? It gives nothing that can affect the -rights of any State or citizen. Indeed, it has been said that it is -exercising a high act of power; he thought it had been shown to be -rather of the inferior kind; but allow the position, and who so proper -as the Legislature of the whole Union to exercise such a power for the -general welfare? It has also been said that this power is a mere -conveniency for the purpose of fiscal transactions, but not necessary to -attain the ends proposed in the constitution. This is denied, and at -best is mere matter of opinion, and must be left to the discretion of -the Legislature to determine. - -Mr. B. said, he should now conclude what he had to say, had not an -honorable gentleman (Mr. JACKSON) brought forward the observations of -the author of the _Federalist_, vol. 2, p. 72, 73, 74, to show a -different contemporaneous exposition of the constitution, and charged -the author, who he alleged was said to be also the author of the present -plan before the House, with a change of sentiment. As this gentleman is -not here to speak for himself, he ought to have the next best chance by -having what he then wrote candidly attended to, especially as gentlemen -allow him to be a good authority. Mr. B. read only part of the 73d page -referred to by Mr. JACKSON, in these words: "Had the Convention -attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for -carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved -a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the constitution -relates; accommodated, too, not only to the existing state of things, -but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every -new application of a general power, the particular powers which are the -means of attaining the general power must always necessarily vary with -that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the -same." How these sentiments can be said to be a different -contemporaneous exposition must be left to the House to determine. - -Mr. B. then begged the indulgence of the House to hear the same -gentlemen when arguing expressly on that part of the constitution now -under consideration; and then read pp. 144, 145, and 146, of the 1st -vol. of the _Federalist_, which are too long to be inserted. He declared -that, in his opinion, it was impracticable to put together language in -the same length that could more forcibly and pointedly elucidate and -prove the construction contended for in support of the bill on the -table. There remained yet but two objections, to answer which Mr. B. -would detain the House a little longer. - -The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. JACKSON) had charged the measure with -establishing the commercial interests, to the great injury of the -agricultural. If this was true he never would agree to it, for he -considered the agricultural interests of America as its great and sure -dependence. Mr. B. confessed that so far from seeing these measures in -this point of light, he could not bring his mind to comprehend how the -commercial interests of a country could be promoted without greatly -advancing the interests of agriculture. Will the farmer have any -temptation to labor, if the surplus of what he raises beyond his -domestic consumption is to perish in his barn for want of a market? Can -a market be obtained without the merchant? If commerce flourishes, the -merchants increase, and of course the demand for the produce of the -land; but if the mercantile interests fail, there is none to export the -surplus produced by agriculture. If the farmer should undertake to -export his own produce, he could not give his whole attention to his -affairs; or, if the merchant should attempt to raise the grain he -wanted, he could not carry on his merchandise. The one interest depends -on the other; a separation destroys both. - -But the incapacity of the Bank to extend its influence to the extremes -of the Union has been argued from the gentleman never having seen a note -of the present Bank of North America in Georgia; he therefore concludes -that bank has never been of any service to her agricultural interests. -Mr. B. said that he drew very different conclusions from this fact. He -supposed that by means of the bank the traders with Georgia had been -enabled to send her the precious metals, while the bank paper had -answered their purposes nearer home, where it circulated with undoubted -credit. He instanced a case of a Philadelphia merchant, who was -possessed of £100 in gold, and £100 credit at the bank; the merchant -wanted £100 worth of rice of a Georgia planter, and the like value in -flour of a Pennsylvania farmer. When he purchased the one of the -Georgian, he could safely pay him the whole in gold, while he found the -Pennsylvanian would as readily receive the bank paper for his flour; but -had there been no bank, he could have purchased but £50 worth of each, -and the Georgia and Pennsylvanian both would have gone without a market -for the residue. In short, the whole Union may be likened to the body -and limbs; you cannot aid or comfort one but the other must be likewise -benefited. - -He said it was, however, difficult and impracticable to show that every -measure adopted by the Government should have an effect perfectly equal -over so extensive a country as that of the United States; it was -sufficient if, upon the whole, the measures of Government, taken all -together, produced the desired equality. - -The last objection was, that by adopting this bill we exposed the -measure to be considered and defeated by the Judiciary of the United -States, who might adjudge it to be contrary to the constitution, and -therefore void; and not lend their aid to carry it into execution. This, -he alleged, gave him no uneasiness. He was so far from controverting -this right in the Judiciary, that it was his boast and his confidence. -It led him to greater decision on all subjects of a constitutional -nature, when he reflected that if, from inattention, want of precision, -or any other defect, he should do wrong, that there was a power in the -Government which could constitutionally prevent the operation of such a -wrong measure from affecting his constituents. He was legislating for a -nation, and for thousands unborn; and it was the glory of the -constitution that there was a remedy even for the failures of the -supreme Legislature itself. - -Upon the whole, then, he said, that on taking the power in question in -every point of view, and giving the constitution the fullest -consideration, under the advantage of having the objections placed in -the strongest point of light by the great abilities of the gentlemen in -the opposition, he was clearly in favor of the bill; as to its -expediency, there could be little doubt in the minds of any gentleman; -and unless more conclusive arguments could be adduced to show its -unconstitutionality, he should in the end vote for passing the bill. - - -SATURDAY, February 5. - -_Bank of the United States._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the bill for incorporating the -Bank of the United States. - -The question being on the passage of the bill, - -Mr. SMITH observed, that he considered it his duty to offer the reasons -which should influence him in giving his vote on this occasion. He had -wished amendments to the bill, as some parts of it, he confessed, did -not perfectly please him; but his wishes having been overruled, the -question now is, whether the bill shall pass? Though he came southward -of the Potomac, the principle of the bill met his approbation. It would -be a deplorable thing if this Government should enact a law subversive -of the constitution, or that so enlightened a body as the Senate of the -United States should, by so great a majority as were in favor of this -bill, pass a law so hostile to the liberties of this country, as the -opposition to this measure have suggested the bank system to be; and it -would be very extraordinary if an officer of this Government who has -produced a performance explanatory of the constitution, of such -celebrity as to be resorted to as an authority, should be so -inconsistent with himself as to propose a law entirely subversive of the -principles laid down in his able defence of the constitution. - -He then adverted to the objection drawn from that article of the -constitution, that no preference shall be given to one port over -another. He showed that the clause was inserted for a particular -purpose, and could not be cited as a rule not to be deviated from, as a -preference was and must necessarily be given to one port over another. -He produced numerous instances in point. In consequence of various -clauses in the revenue laws, general regulations sometimes operate -partially, and commercial arrangements, apparently unequal, produce the -good of the community at large. - -In reference to construing the constitution, he observed, that the -present moment, when the powers of the Government were assailed from -various quarters, he conceived the most improper to contract these -powers. - -The right to construe the constitution he argued from the principles -advanced by Mr. MADISON, in the debate on the power of removability, and -read sundry observations from _Lloyd's Register_, made by that -gentleman, corroborative of this sentiment. Those arguments, he -conceived, applied very aptly to the present subject. - -Matters of a fiscal nature necessarily devolve on the General -Government, and he urged that every power resulting from the -acknowledged right of Congress to control the finances of this country -must be as necessarily implied as in the case of the power of -removability. - -He then alluded to the expediency of a National Bank. The Secretary gave -notice, in his first report, that this plan was in contemplation. -Nothing was ever read with greater avidity; and though it is now more -than a year since this intimation was given, yet no objections have been -offered against it either by the States or by individuals--even the -State of North Carolina has not mentioned it. [Here Mr. BLOODWORTH (if -the reporter did not misunderstand) informed Mr. SMITH that the report -had not been seen by the Legislature of North Carolina.] Mr. SMITH said -he was sorry for it--and then proceeded to notice some partial -quotations, made by Mr. JACKSON, from _Dr. Smith's Wealth of Nations_, -against bank systems. He said, he could have wished the gentleman had -been more copious in his quotations from that author; if he had, he -would have found that that author has fully demonstrated their utility. - -He noticed the divisions of opinions on the subject of a National Bank -in the city of Philadelphia. He supposed ideas of personal advantages -induced these opposing sentiments. He, however, thought this subject -should be taken up altogether on general principles; and even if its -immediate influence should not extend to the extremes of the Union, if -the establishment promises a general preponderating advantage, local -considerations must be considered in a secondary point of view. The -principal inquiry is, will the institution facilitate the management of -the finances? This, he thought, had been made apparent. This is the -opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, after due and mature -consideration of the subject; and he certainly enjoys the best means of -forming an opinion; he is at the head of the Fiscal Department, and -deservedly enjoys the public confidence. Very little has been offered to -disprove his sentiments on this part of the question, and the -inexpediency of the measure should be clearly proved before the plan is -rejected; for an officer who deservedly enjoys the public confidence is -entitled to the support of the Legislature in those plans which are -expedient and constitutional. - -Mr. S. mentioned instances in which Congress exercised power by -implication, and observed, that this was necessary to the execution of -the duties which devolve on the Government by the constitution. The -power to establish a National Bank must reside in Congress, for no -individual State can exercise any such power. The right of no particular -State is therefore infringed by the institution. It had repeatedly been -said, that Philadelphia would derive peculiar advantages from the Bank -of the United States, but, he said, if the present plan should fail, it -was a question whether the stockholders of the Bank of North America -would not derive greater advantages from the necessity which, in that -case, Government would be under of resorting to them for loans. The -institution, as before observed, is founded on general principles, and -will undoubtedly, in its operations, prove of general utility. - -Mr. STONE said, if, upon questions like the present, he had given pain -to members he regarded, they might be assured the pain was reciprocal. -Let us cherish mutual toleration. We might conceive that each pursued -the system which he advocated from the purest motives. We differ in our -ideas of Government, and our sense of the sacredness of the written -compact. We varied widely in our opinions of the direction of this -Government. The great lesson of experiment would show who is right; but -we are influenced in our habits of thinking by our local situations, -and, perhaps, the distinct interests of the States we represent. He -observed, that upon the present occasion, the opinions respecting the -constitution seem to be divided by a geographical line, dividing the -continent. Hence it might be inferred, that other considerations mixed -with the question; and it had been insinuated that it was warped by the -future seat of Government. But other causes may be assigned for the -diversity of sentiment--the people to the eastward began earliest in -favor of liberty. They pursued freedom into anarchy--starting at the -precipice of confusion, they are now vibrating far the other way. He -said, that all our taxes are paid by the consumers of manufactures; -those taxes are all bounties upon home manufactures. The people to the -eastward are the manufacturers of this country; it was no wonder that -they should endeavor to strengthen the hands of a Government by which -they are so peculiarly benefited. - -It is a fact that the greatest part of the Continental debt has -travelled eastward of the Potomac. This law is to raise the value of the -Continental paper. Here, then, is the strong impulse of immediate -interest in favor of the Bank. He took notice of the distinction made by -the plan of the bill, between Continental and State paper. The State -paper, on account of partial payments of interest, still remained in the -respective States. But this could not, by the present system, be -subscribed; so that the Southern States were deprived of the advantage -that might have been given to the only paper they have. But if gentlemen -charge us with defending the seat of Government, let them remember that -this betrays consciousness of an attack. If they believe that this -scheme tends to break the faith of the Union pledged to the Potomac, it -is no wonder they suppose we oppose it upon that ground. He would not -have mentioned this subject, had it not been hinted at. But let the -whole of it come forth; let gentlemen consult their own bosoms; let the -public decide the truth of his observations. He hoped he should not be -suspected of any bias. That so uniform had been his conduct upon all -questions, turning upon principles similar to the present, that every -member in the House, he believed, had conjectured rightly of the side he -would take, before he had uttered a word upon the subject, When -implication first raised its head in this House, he started from it as a -serpent which was to sting and poison the constitution. He felt in -unison with his country. The fears, the opinions, the jealousies of -individuals and of States, had been explained by a gentleman from -Virginia, (Mr. MADISON.) He should only remark, that all those who -opposed the Government dreaded this doctrine; those who advocated it, -declared that it could not be resorted to; and all combined in opinion -that it ought not to be tolerated. Never did any country more completely -unite in any sentiment than America in this, "that Congress ought not to -exercise, by implication, powers not granted by the constitution." And -is it not strange? For the admission of this doctrine destroys the -principle of our Government at a blow; it at once breaks down every -barrier which the Federal constitution had raised against unlimited -legislation. He said, that necessity was the most plausible pretext for -breaking the spirit of the social compact, but the people of this -country have anticipated that pretext. They have said to the Ministers -of this country, "we have given you what we think competent powers, but -if experience proves them inadequate, we will enlarge them; but, in the -mean time, dare not usurp those which we have reserved." - -It is agreed on all hands, that the power to incorporate the subscribers -to a banking company, is not expressly granted, and although gentlemen -have agreed that it is implied--that it is an incident, that it is a -means for effectuating powers expressly granted, yet they are not agreed -as to the particular power to which this is an incident. They admit, -that the sweeping clause in the constitution confers no additional -power. But if he understood the gentlemen, several of them were of -opinion that all governments, instituted for certain ends, draw to them -the means of execution as of common right. This doctrine would make ours -but a short constitution. [Here he read the preamble and then said:] -Here is your constitution! Here is your bill of rights! Do these -gentlemen require any thing more respecting the powers of Congress, than -a description of the ends of government? And if, of right, they can -carry these into effect, will they regard the means, though they be -expressly pointed out? But I would ask if there is any power under -heaven which could not be exercised within the extensive limits of this -preamble? - -The Convention might have stopped here; and there was no need, according -to the doctrine of the gentleman, to point out any of the means for the -ends mentioned in the preamble. That portion of the constitution which -by all America has been thought so important, according to their logic, -would become a dead letter; but the preamble, in fair construction, is a -solemn compact, that the powers granted shall be made use of to the ends -thereby specified. - -He then reprobated, in pointed terms, the latitude of the principles -premised. He said the end of all government is the public good; and if -the means were left to legislation, all written compacts were nugatory. -He observed, that the sober discretion of the Legislature, which, in the -opinions of gentlemen, ought to be paramount, was the very thing -intended to be curbed and restrained by our constitution. - -He then declared, that our form of government not only pointed out the -ends of government, but specified the means of execution. He said, we -may make war--this would draw to it the power of raising an army and -navy, laying taxes, establishing a judiciary, &c. But the spirit of the -constitution, in this respect, had been well explained by Mr. MADISON, -and he should not recapitulate. - -He said, a gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) had remarked that -all our laws proceeded upon the principle of expediency--that we were -the judges of that expediency--as soon as we gave it as our opinion that -a thing was expedient, it became constitutional. What then remains of -your constitution, except its mode of organization? We may look into it -to refresh our memories respecting the times, places, and manner of -composing the Government; that, as to the powers of Congress, were he of -that gentleman's opinion, he would never look into it again. Gentlemen -see the difficulties of their theories, and are obliged to confess that -these incidental powers are not easily defined. They rest in the sober -discretion of the Legislature. - -One gentleman (Mr. AMES) has said, no implication ought to be made -against the law of nature, against rights acquired, or against power -pre-occupied by the States; that it is easier to restrain than to give -competent powers of execution. Now these notions are hostile to the main -principle of our Government, which is only a grant of particular -portions of power, implying a negative to all others. It has been shown -that the ends of government will include every thing. If gentlemen are -allowed to range in their sober discretion for the means, it is plain -that they have no limits. By the cabalistic word _incident_, your -constitution is turned upside down, and instead of being a grant of -particular powers, guarded by an implied negative to all others, it is -made to imply all powers. But, strange to tell, America forgot to guard -it by express negative provisions. Is there any difference in effect -between lodging general powers in a government, and permitting the -exercise of them by subtle constructions? He said there was a -difference. In the one case the people fairly gave up their liberty, and -stood prepared; in the other, they were unexpectedly tricked out of -their constitution. - -The preceding remarks showed how dangerous is the doctrine of -implication, and upon what small data ingenuity can raise the most -dangerous superstructure. He should now take a view of these precedents, -in the former and present Congress, which are relied on to justify the -present measure. - -1st. The Bank of North America. Here he stated the distressful and -critical situation of America at the period of its establishment; he -remarked, that it was at the time of the declension of the Continental -money. He showed that there were no powers in the Confederation to which -(even according to the reasoning of the other side) this power could be -incidental, but what required the vote of nine States; that the -ordinance passed by a vote of seven States, which showed that necessity -alone gave birth to that measure. He showed the dissimilarity of the -situations of the former and this Congress, and the difference in their -powers, and, consequently, in the dangers to be apprehended from the -encroachment of either. - -2d. The redemption of our prisoners at Algiers. This comes within the -power to regulate trade. If, said he, we are not capable of redeeming, -by the best means in our power, our citizens, our trade may be entirely -ruined; and hence, the law which would be made for their redemption -would be necessary and proper. But, by the constitution, the Executive -may make treaties; these may be general, or for a particular object, and -the Legislature may effectuate them by grants of money. - -3d. We have bought certificates, and not destroyed them. This, they say, -is implied from the power of paying the debts. - -He asked if, before the purchase, the certificates were debts due from -the United States? And demanded, if, by the purchase, they were divested -of that quality? In my judgment, when a debt is fairly cancelled, it is -as much like a payment as need be. - -4th. We had no right, except by implication, to give a salary to the -Vice President. He had voted against the salary, and had been for a _per -diem_ allowance, because he thought the Vice President was viewed by the -constitution only as the President of the Senate. But this example fails -most palpably, as Congress, in the compensations, are not confined by -the constitution either to a particular sum or mode of payment. - -5th. Congress have made corporations, and exercised complete legislation -in the Western Territory. He said, to answer this case, nothing more was -necessary than to read the clause in the constitution which gives to -Congress expressly the power to make all the rules and regulations for -them. - -It seemed to him as if gentlemen were inverting the order of things, by -making powers where there were none, and attempting to prove express -grants to the implications. - -6th. Our regulations respecting freighters and owners, and between -captains and seamen. He had not those regulations correctly in his -memory, but he believed them proper and necessary regulations of -commerce. - -7th. It has been said we have exclusive jurisdiction in places belonging -to Congress, and within the ten miles square. We could erect a bank in -any of those places; its influence would extend over the continent; the -principle upon which we founded this power could not be confined to a -particular time or a spot of land. Gentlemen ridicule the idea that the -exercise of a pervading influence and a general principle should be -limited by any particular number of years, or be confined within a fort. -He said, the power of exclusive legislation in those places was -expressly granted, and, under its influence, the Congress might exercise -complete and exclusive legislation within those limits; that the power -was confined to the places. But if the general powers of this -constitution are to be governed by the same rules of construction, and -we are to have no regard to place, it follows that Congress can exercise -exclusive legislation over this continent. He was astonished at this -doctrine. It would be equally reasonable to say, that France, because -within the limits of her own dominions, and over her own property, she -exercised exclusive legislation, that hence she had a right to legislate -for the world. - -8th. The power of removal of officers by the President alone. He said, -it was known he had opposed that doctrine. He left it to be defended by -those who had voted for it. But he hoped Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, -and some other gentlemen, who had opposed it, would review the arguments -they had used upon that occasion. - -He observed, after taking a view of these precedents on the danger of -laying down improper principles in legislation, how eagerly men grasped -at the slightest pretexts for exercise of power. He shuddered to think -what a broad and commanding position this Bank will form for further -encroachments. - -A gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. SEDGWICK) has said, that whenever a -power is granted, all the known and usual means of execution are always -implied. The idea had been properly examined by Mr. GILES, but he would -ask, if incorporating the subscribers to a bank was the known and usual -means of borrowing money, especially when the subscribers were not -obliged to loan; or of collecting taxes, when no taxes were levied on -the bank. - -But gentlemen tell us, that if we tie up the constitution too tightly, -it will break; if we hamper it, we cannot stir; if we do not admit the -doctrine, we cannot legislate at all. And with a kind of triumph, they -say that implication is recognized by the constitution itself in the -clause wherein we have power to make all laws, to carry, &c. He said, he -was ready to meet the gentlemen upon this ground. This clause was -intended to defeat those loose and proud principles of legislation which -had been contended for. It was meant to reduce legislation to some rule. -In fine, it confined the Legislature to those means that were necessary -and proper. - -He said, it would not be pretended that it was necessary and proper for -the collection of taxes. Indeed, one gentleman (Mr. AMES) had attempted -to show that the payments in specie could not be made, if by chance a -great quantity of debt suddenly accumulated in a particular place. But -it might be remembered, that this necessity, if it arrived, was created -by the Legislature, and that would be strange reasoning which broke a -good constitution to mend a bad law. No taxes are to be collected by -this bill. - -It would not be necessary and proper as a means of borrowing money, -because, first, we do not want to borrow money, and, if we did, this -law, though it may be the probable, is not the necessary mean; for if it -was the interest of the stockholders, they might, and he believed would, -refuse to loan. He said, that the institution might be defended upon -more plausible grounds, if the Bank had been taxed; or if a condition to -loan money to the public had been part of the plan. Upon what ground, -then, do gentlemen stand? They can only say, that they have implied a -great and substantive power in Congress, which gives to Government, or -to individuals, the influence of fifteen millions of dollars, -irrevocably, for twenty years, with a power of making by-laws, &c., -because there is a probability that this institution may be convenient -and agreeable in the operations of Government. He asked, upon parallel -principles, what might Congress not do? He said, that the gentleman from -Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) pursuing the doctrine into all the forms in -which it might appear, had struck upon several cases which were very -pointed--an incorporation of manufacturers with exclusive privileges; -merchants with the same; a national religion. This a gentleman (Mr. -AMES) has said was unfair and extravagant reasoning; and yet, in five -minutes, the gentleman's own reasoning led him to ask, with warmth, if -Congress could not join stocks with a company to trade to Nootka? And he -condescended to doubt, if the privileges given to such a company might -not be exclusive. He saw clearly, himself, that his theory led to the -latter conclusion; for if expediency, if convenience, if facility, if -fears of war, if preparations for events which might never happen, can -justify an incorporation upon the present plan, the same suggestions, -the same logic, will legalize incorporations with exclusive privileges. -The deductions of the gentleman from Virginia are sound and right, and -cannot be fairly controverted. Congress may then do any thing. Nay, if -the principles now advocated are right, it is the duty of the -Legislature of the Union to make all laws; not only those that are -necessary and proper to carry the powers of the Government into effect, -but all laws which are convenient, expedient, and beneficial to the -United States. Then where is your constitution! Are we not now sitting, -in our sober discretion, a General Government, without the semblance of -restraint? Yes, said he, we have still a constitution, but where is it -to be found? Is it written? No. Is it among the archives? No. Where is -it? It is found in the sober discretion of the Legislature--it is -registered in the brains of the majority! - -He proceeded. I say there is no necessity, there is no occasion, for -this Bank. The States will institute banks which will answer every -purpose. But a distrust of the States is shown in every movement of -Congress--will not this implant distrust also in the States? Will you -gain by this contest? This scheme may give, and I am convinced will -give, partial advantages to the States. In the fair administration of -our Government, no partial advantages can be given; but, by this bill, a -few stockholders may institute banks in particular States, to their -aggrandizement and the oppression of others. This Bank will swallow up -the State banks; it will raise in this country a moneyed interest at the -devotion of Government; it may bribe both States and individuals. He -said, gentlemen asked who would be offended or hurt by this plan? Have -we heard any complaints against it? Have the newspapers reprobated it? -These questions had no influence on his mind. He said it was one of -those sly and subtle movements which marched silently to its object; the -vices of it were at first not palpable or obvious; but when the people -saw a distinction of banks created--when they viewed with astonishment -the train of wealth which followed individuals, whose sudden exaltation -surprised even the possessors--they would inquire how all this came -about? They will then examine into the powers by which these phenomena -have arisen, and they will find--they will reprobate the falsehood of -the theories of the present day. - -He said, that gentlemen had told us of the sudden irruptions of enemies. -When those necessities arrive, it is time enough to make use of them to -break your constitution. But, gentlemen say, upon emergencies the Bank -will loan money. We differ in opinion. I think when we want it most, the -Bank will be most unable and unwilling to lend. If we are in -prosperity, we can borrow money almost any where; but in adversity, -stockholders will avoid us with as much caution as any other -capitalists. - -But a gentleman (Mr. AMES) tells us not to be alarmed, the Bank will not -eat up liberty--he said he was not afraid. He was not under any -apprehensions that all the little influence that Congress possessed -would destroy the great spirit of American liberty. The body of the -people would laugh at and ridicule any attempt to enslave them; but a -conduct which had that tendency might arouse alarming passions. He said, -there existed at this moment ill-blood in the United States, which to -quiet he would readily agree to enter into a foreign war. America with -us, we might defy the world. There was but one people he was afraid of -offending. This was America. He was not afraid of foreign enemies, but -the resentment of our own country is always a subject of serious -apprehension. He observed, that there were other parts of this important -and diffusive subject which he might have touched, but he had fatigued -himself and the House. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, as he had been greatly misunderstood -by the gentleman last up, he wished to explain the position he had laid -down. He had never been so absurd as to contend, as the gentleman had -stated, that whatever the Legislature thought expedient, was therefore -constitutional. He had only argued that in cases where the question was, -whether a law was necessary and proper to carry a given power into -effect, the members of the Legislature had no other guide but their own -judgment, from which alone they were to determine whether the measure -proposed was necessary and proper to carry the powers vested in Congress -into full effect. If, in such cases, it appeared to them, on solemn -deliberation, that the measure was not prohibited by any part of the -constitution, was not a violation of the rights of any State or -individual, and was peculiarly necessary and proper to carry into -operation certain essential powers of the Government, it was then not -only justifiable on the part of Congress, but it was even their duty to -adopt such measure. That, nevertheless, it was still within the province -of the Judiciary to annul the law, if it should be by them deemed not to -result by fair construction from the powers vested by the constitution. - - -MONDAY, February 7. - -_Bank of the United States._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the bill for incorporating the -Bank of the United States. - -The question being on the passage of the bill, - -Mr. GILES.--In the course of discussing the present important question, -it has been several times insinuated that local motives, and not a -candid and patriotic investigation of the subject upon its merits, have -given rise to that difference of opinion which has been heretofore -manifested in this House. I shall not examine the truth of this -observation, but merely remark, that the causes which may have produced -the arguments against the proposed measure, whatever they may be, can -neither add to, nor take from, their merit or influence, and, of course, -the insinuations might have been spared without injury to the subject; -but so far as the observation may have been intended to apply to myself, -I can truly say, that if a bias were to influence my conduct, it would -rather direct it to favor, than to oppose the proposed measure. This -bias would arise from two causes: the one from the respect which I -entertain for the judgments of the majority who advocate the measure; -the other of a more serious nature. I have observed with regret a -radical difference of opinion between gentlemen from the Eastern and -Southern States, upon the great Governmental questions, and have been -led to conclude, that the operation of that cause alone might cast -ominous conjecture on the promised success of this much valued -Government. Mutual concessions appear to be necessary to obviate this -effect, and I have always been pleased in manifesting my disposition to -make advances; but from the most careful view of the arguments in favor -of the proposed measure considered under this impression, they do not -seem to me sufficient to establish the propriety of its adoption, and I -am therefore impelled, by the joint influence of duty and opinion, to be -one in the opposition. - -A gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. AMES) prefaced his observations with -this remark, that it is easier to point out defects and raise objections -to any proposed system, than to defend it from objections, and prove its -affirmative propriety, and warned the House against the effects of -arguments of this nature, urged in opposition to the measures now under -consideration. I agree with the gentleman in this idea in general, but -we should reflect that in the present case the address of the arguments -in favor of the measure is made to one of the strongest affections of -the human mind, the love of dominion; and hence we may justly conclude, -that they will be received and relished with their full and unabated -influence. This reflection appears to me to be at least a counterpoise -to that remark. - -The advocates of this bill have been called on, and I conceive with -propriety, to show its constitutionality and expediency, both of which -have been doubted by those of the opposition. In support of the first -position, a multitude of arguments have been adduced, all of which may -be reducible to the following heads; such as are drawn from the -constitution itself; from the incidentality of this authority to the -mere creation and existence of government; from the expediency of the -measure itself; and from precedents of Congress; to which may be added a -similar exercise of authority by Congress, under the former -Confederation. - -Observations arising from the constitution itself, were of two kinds. -The right of exercising this authority is either expressed in the -constitution, or deducible from it by necessary implication. One -gentleman only, from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK,) has ventured to -assert, that, discarding the doctrine of implication, he could show that -the right to exercise the authority contended for was expressly -contained in the constitution. This, I presume, must have been a mistake -in language, because the difference between an express and an implied -authority appears to me to consist in this--in the one case, the natural -import of the words used in granting the authority would of themselves -convey a complete idea to the mind of the authority granted, without the -aid of argument or deduction; in the other, to convey a complete idea to -the mind, the aid of argument and deduction is found necessary to the -usual import of words used; and that gentleman proceeded with a labored -argument to prove, that the authority was expressly granted, which would -have been totally useless, if his assertion had been just. - -[Mr. SEDGWICK rose to explain; he never conceived the authority granted -by the express words of the constitution, but absolutely by necessary -implication from different parts of it.] - -I shall not contend as to the assertion, but shall proceed to consider -the arguments in favor of the measure upon the doctrine of implication; -which, indeed, are those only which deserve consideration. - -In doing this, I shall consider the authority contended for to apply to -that of granting charters to corporations in general, for I do not -recollect any circumstance, and I believe none has been pretended, which -could vary this case from the general exercise of that authority. To -establish the affirmative of this proposition, arguments have been drawn -from the several parts of the constitution; the context has been -resorted to. "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a -more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, -provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure -the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," &c. It has -been remarked, that here the ends for which this Government was -established are clearly pointed out; the means to produce the ends are -left to the choice of the Legislature, and that the incorporation of a -bank is one necessary mean to produce these general ends. It may be -observed, in reply, that the context contemplates every general object -of Government whatever; and if this reasoning were to be conclusive, -every object of Government would be within the authority of Congress, -and the detail of the constitution would have been wholly unnecessary, -further than to designate the several branches of the Government which -were to be intrusted with this unlimited, discretionary choice of means, -to produce these specified ends. The same reasoning would apply as -forcibly to every clause of the constitution, restraining the authority -of Congress to the present case, or to any one in which the constitution -is silent. The only candid construction arising from the context appears -to me to be this; it is designed, and it is the known office of every -member to point out the great objects proposed to be answered by the -subsequent regulations of which the constitution is composed. These -regulations contain the means by which these objects are presumed to be -best answered. These means consist in a proper distribution of all -Governmental rights between the Government of the United States and the -several State governments, and in fixing limits to the exercise of all -authorities granted to the Government of the United States. The context, -therefore, gives no authority whatever, but only contemplates the ends -for which certain authorities are subsequently given. Arguments drawn -from this source appear to be ineffectual in themselves, and the -reliance of gentlemen upon them indicates a suspicion and distrust of -such as may be drawn from other parts of the constitution. The advocates -of the bill have turned away from this context, and have applied to the -body of the constitution in search of arguments. They have fixed upon -the following clauses, to all or some one of which they assert the -authority contended for is clearly incidental; the right to lay and -collect taxes, &c., &c.; to provide for the common defence and general -welfare, &c.; to borrow money, &c.; to regulate commerce with foreign -nations, &c. The bill contemplates neither the laying nor collecting -taxes, and, of course, it cannot be included in that clause; indeed, it -is not pretended, by the bill itself, to be at all necessary to produce -either of those ends; the furthest the idea is carried in the bill, is, -that it will tend to give a facility to the collection. - -The terms "common defence and general welfare" contain no grant of any -specific authority, and can relate to such only as are particularly -enumerated and specified. "To borrow money." Gentlemen have relied much -upon this clause; their reasoning is, that a right to incorporate a bank -is incidental to that of borrowing money, because it creates the ability -to lend, which is necessary to effectuate the right to borrow. I am at a -loss to discover one single relation between the right to borrow, and -the right to create the ability to lend, which is necessary to exist -between principal and incident. It appears to me that the incidental -authority is paramount to the principal, for the right of creating the -ability to lend is greater than that of borrowing from a previously -existing ability. I should, therefore, rather conclude that the right to -borrow, if there be a connection at all, would be incidental to the -right to grant charters of incorporation, than the reverse of that -proposition, which is the doctrine contended for by the advocates of the -measure. The same reasoning which would establish a right to create the -ability to lend, would apply more strongly to enforce the will after -the ability is created; because the creator would have a claim of -gratitude at least upon the created ability, which if withheld, perhaps, -with justice might be insisted on. "To regulate commerce with foreign -nations." This is by no means a satisfactory ground for the assumption -of this authority; for if it be deemed a commercial regulation, there is -a clause in the constitution which would absolutely inhibit its -exercise. I allude to that clause which provides that no preference -shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of -one State over those of another; and it seems to be admitted, that one -principal effect to be produced by the operation of this measure will be -to give a decided commercial preference to this port over every other in -the United States. - -Gentlemen finding it difficult to show that necessary relation and -intimate connection between the authority contended for, and any one of -the specified authorities before mentioned, which would be essential to -the establishment of their doctrine, have referred to what has been -generally called the sweeping clause, and have made deductions from the -terms "necessary" and "proper;" they have observed that certain -specified authorities being granted, all others necessary to their -execution follow without any particular specification. This observation -may in general be true, but its fallacy here consists in its application -to this particular case. It cannot be applied until the exercise of this -authority be proved to be necessarily connected with some one of the -previously enumerated authorities, and here the argument, as well as the -fact, fails. - -The authority contended for seems to me to be a distinct substantive -branch of legislation, and, perhaps, paramount to any one of the -previously enumerated authorities, and should therefore not be usurped -as an incidental subaltern authority. - -I am confirmed in this opinion from the indistinct, confused conceptions -of gentlemen who advocate the measure. They rely upon the incidentality -of this authority to some one of those particularly specified, and yet -have applied it as an incident to several distinct, unconnected subjects -of legislation; and then, distrusting their own conclusions, or as if -the inquiry would be too troublesome or minute, they leave this ground, -and assert that it is incidental to the result of the whole combined -specified authorities. Gentlemen must, therefore, view this right -through different optics, at different times; or, what I rather believe -to be the fact, they have no distinct view of it at all, the right -having no existence. - -A gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK,) finding the usual import -of the terms used in the constitution to be rather unfavorable to the -doctrines advanced by him, has favored us with a new exposition of the -word "necessary." He says that "necessary," as applicable to a mean to -produce an end, should be construed so as to produce the greatest -quantum of public utility. I have been taught to conceive that the true -exposition of a necessary mean to produce a given end was that mean -without which the end could not be produced. - -The gentleman's reasoning, however, if pursued, will be found to teem -with dangerous effects, and would justify the assumption of any given -authority whatever. Terms are to be so construed as to produce the -greatest degree of public utility. Congress are to be the judges of this -degree of utility. This utility, when decided on, will be the ground of -constitutionality. Hence any measure may be proved constitutional which -Congress may judge to be useful. These deductions would suborn the -constitution itself, and blot out the great distinguishing -characteristic of the free constitutions of America, as compared with -the despotic Governments of Europe, which consist in having the -boundaries of governmental authority clearly marked out and ascertained. - -The exclusive jurisdiction over ten miles square has been adverted to by -one gentleman (Mr. AMES) as a specified authority, to which the one -contended for is suggested to be incidental. He has reasoned in this -manner: Congress possess jurisdiction over ten miles square, &c.; -Congress may therefore establish a bank within the ten miles square, -and, as principle is not applicable to place, Congress may exercise the -same authority any where else. This seems to me to be an ingenious -improvement upon sophistical deduction; the gentleman, however, should -have reflected that the ground upon which he built the right to exercise -this authority was that of exclusive jurisdiction, and to extend the -principle it is necessary to extend the right of exclusive jurisdiction; -without this, the basis of his argument fails, and the superstructure, -however beautiful, must follow; for the principle, if at all deducible -from that source, is expressly confined to place, and cannot operate -beyond it. - -I shall now consider the second resource, whence the constitutional -right of exercising the proposed authority is derived; its incidentality -to the mere creation and existence of government. It has been observed, -that in all governments there are certain rights tacitly granted, and -certain other rights retained; that it is impossible, in framing a -constitution, to enumerate every minute governmental right, and that -such an attempt would be chimerical and vain. And hence the -incidentality of this authority to the mere existence of government is -inferred. These observations seem to me to apply to a government growing -out of a state of society, and not to a government composed of chartered -rights from previously existing governments, or the people of those -governments. I have been taught to consider this as a Federal, not as a -consolidated Government, and am not prepared or disposed at present to -relinquish that idea. A gentleman from New York (Mr. LAWRENCE) has -remarked, that the Government is consolidated _quo ad_ the powers -granted, and of course _quo ad_ their incidents; but he should first -have shown that the authority contended for is one of those granted, or -incidental to some one of them, before the application can be made. The -observation can have no tendency to establish either of those positions. -What effect would this doctrine, if admitted, have upon the State -governments? And how would it be relished by them? Their dignity and -consequence will not only be prostrated by it, but their very existence -radically subverted. A third resource of deducing this constitutional -authority is resorted to--the expediency of the proposed measure itself. -I presume the great object of the constitution was to distribute all -governmental rights between the several State Governments and the -Government of the United States; the expediency, therefore, of the -exercise of all constitutional rights, as they relate to State or -General Governments, is properly contemplated and decided by the -constitution, and not by the Governments among which the distribution is -made. A gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) has said, that the -expediency and constitutionality of the proposed measure cannot be -considered separately, because the constitutionality grows out of the -expediency. This is but candidly unveiling the subject of that -sophistical mask which has been ingeniously thrown over it by some -gentlemen; for all the arguments adduced in favor of the measure, from -whatever source they arise, if pursued, will be found to rush into the -great one of expediency, to bear down all constitutional provisions, and -to end themselves in the unlimited ocean of despotism. - -Several gentlemen have said, that this authority may be safely -exercised, since it does not interfere with the rights of States or -individuals. I think this assertion not very correct; if the States be -constitutionally entitled to the exercise of this authority, it is an -intrusion on their rights to do an act which would eventually destroy or -impede the freest exercise of that authority; for it is totally -immaterial whether the effect be produced by the operation of this, or -by an inhibition in express terms. The States may not only incorporate -banks, but may of right prohibit the circulation of bank paper within -their respective limits; the act, therefore, if it be intended to have -an effectual operation, will certainly infringe this right, or exist at -the mercy of the State governments. This reasoning, however, places the -subject in another point of view a little singular. It contemplates the -authority contended for as vacant ground, and justifies the tenure by -the mere title of occupancy. In almost all the remarks in favor of the -measure, gentlemen seem to have forgotten the peculiar nature of this -Government. It being composed of mere chartered authorities, all -authority not contained within that charter would, from the nature of -the grant, have been retained to the granting party; and I will venture -to assert, that this opinion was the _sine qua_ _non_ of the adoption -and existence of this Government; but if this opinion had been doubtful, -Congress themselves have made an express declaration in favor of this -construction to the proposed amendments to the constitution. Gentlemen -have inferred a constitutional right to exercise the authority contended -for from a fourth resource--the former usages and habits of Congress. In -affirmance of this argument, several acts of Congress have been referred -to--the power of removal from office, the government of the Western -Territory, the cession from North Carolina, the purchase of West Point, -&c. I shall not examine into the propriety of these several acts, though -I conceive it would not be difficult to show, that they differ -materially, upon constitutional grounds, from the one now proposed. I -shall only remark, that, if Congress have heretofore been in the usage -and habit of disregarding and violating the constitution, it is high -time that that habit and usage be corrected. I hope and trust that the -people of the United States will not tamely see the only security of -their rights and liberties invaded and violated, but also see one -violation of it with impunity boldly urged as an argument to justify -another. - -An instance of a similar exercise of authority by the Congress which -existed under the former Confederation, has been mentioned in favor of -its exercise by the present Congress. The argument has been, that as the -powers of the present Congress are greater than those of the former -Congress, and the former were competent to the exercise of this right, -the present must be more so. It is to be remarked, that that act was the -child of necessity, and that Congress doubted its legitimacy, and the -act itself was never confirmed by a judicial decision; and it should be -also remarked, that the same Congress did not pretend to possess the -right to punish those who should counterfeit the paper of the Bank, and -recommended it to the States to confirm the act which they had done, and -to pass laws for the purpose of punishing those who should counterfeit -the paper, and it is a little remarkable that this circumstance, which -is one of the most essential to the existence and operation of this act, -is withheld from our view. But as I think arguments drawn from this -source wholly foreign to the subject, I shall make no further remark -upon them. - -I shall now suggest a few observations respecting the expediency of the -proposed measure. In doing this, I shall not say any thing as to the -utility of banks in general, nor as to the effects of the banks of -England, Scotland, Holland, &c. I possess not sufficient practical or -theoretical knowledge to justify the inquiry; I shall only point out a -few circumstances, which are peculiarly attached to the government we -are now administering, which might vary the application of general -rules, drawn from governments of a different nature, and which possess -the unquestioned right of granting charters of incorporation. - -In the first place, the right of exercising that authority by the -Government is at least problematical, it is nowhere granted in express -terms; the Legislature, therefore, can have no competent security -against a judicial decision but a dependent or a corrupt court. I -presume that a law to punish with death those who counterfeit the paper -emitted by the Bank will be consequent upon the existence of this act. -Hence a judicial decision will probably be had of the most serious and -awful nature; the life of an individual at stake on the one hand, an -improvident act of the Government on the other. A distrust arising from -this cause will for ever keep the Bank in jeopardy, and the very first -trial of this nature will probably subject the Bank to a run which it -will be unable to withstand; for all stockholders will require the -greatest possible security for their money, and a distrust of such an -institution will be its destruction. This observation seems to me to -have peculiar force, from the great proportion of paper to that of gold -and silver, upon which the Bank is proposed to be founded. The peculiar -relation between the General and State Governments, will naturally -produce a contest for governmental rights, until long experience shall -settle the precise boundaries between them. The present measure appears -to me to be an unprovoked advance in this scramble for authority, and a -mere experiment how far we may proceed without involving the opposition -of the State Governments. It should be remarked that this Government is -in its childhood; it is therefore unfitted for such bold and manly -enterprises, and policy would dictate that it should wait at least until -it may have become more matured or invigorated. Two modes of -administering this Government present themselves; the one with mildness -and moderation, by keeping within the known boundaries of the -constitution, the other, by the creation and operation of fiscal -mechanism; the first will ensure us the affections of the people, the -only natural and substantial basis of Republican Governments; the other -will arise and exist in oppression and injustice, will increase the -previously existing jealousies of the people, and must be ultimately -discarded, or bring about a radical change in the nature of our -Government. Having suggested these observations upon the measure in -general, I shall now proceed to point out a few objections to the -details of the bill. I think the authority given to the Bank to purchase -and hold lands objectionable; in the first place I doubt the -constitutional right of Congress to invest such an authority; the lands -within the United States are holden of the individual States, and not of -the United States; and that tenure appears to me to be the true ground -upon which the right to exercise that authority grows. I believe it is -admitted, that although Congress may naturalize a foreigner, they cannot -authorize him to purchase lands; and I think the case at least as -strong, when they first create an artificial person, and then invest the -authority; besides, if we have any reference to the experience of other -countries, we shall find it dangerous to allow incorporated bodies to -hold lands at all. The exercise of that right produced great oppression -in England, and nothing but the masterly activity of an absolute prince -could apply a competent remedy. A gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. -SEDGWICK) has denied that the Bank is invested with this right. It is -true it is confined to the mode of purchasing by mortgage, but that is -the most effectual mode of purchasing, and the most ruinous to the -landholder. - -I will merely mention one other objection without a comment--the -authority given to make laws not contrary to law or its own -constitution; but the most objectionable clause is that which limits its -duration, and pledges the faith of the United States that no other bank -shall be established in the mean time, however dangerous and offensive -the present measure might prove in its operation, and whatever may be -the utility and advantage in any other scheme of banking which -experience may suggest. Such a stipulation cannot be justified but from -the most pointed necessity, and from the maturest deliberation. When I -search for the necessity of this measure, it escapes me; it is not -pretended in the bill itself; the chief stimulus which I can discover to -the existence of this measure, is to give artificial impulse to the -value of stock. This is not a sufficient justification; the subject has -not been sufficiently considered, and I therefore hope it may be -postponed to some future session of Congress; many evils may be avoided -by such a conduct, none can result from it. - -Mr. GERRY said, he should principally confine himself to the objections -of the gentleman first up from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) not from a -disrespect to the observations of other gentlemen in the opposition, but -because he considered their arguments as grafts on the original stock of -those urged by the gentleman alluded to, and if the trunk fell, its -appendages must fall also. - -The objects of the bill were to render the fiscal administration -successful, and to give facility to loans on sudden emergencies, and to -benefit trade and industry in general; and that these were objects of -high importance had not been denied, neither had it been asserted that -they ought not, if possible, to be attained. - -It is objected, however, that the mode proposed by the bill is -unconstitutional, and the bill itself defective. - -The mode proposed is a National Bank; to establish which he thought -Congress were as competent as either House were to adjourn from day to -day. - -It is said that Congress have no power relating to this subject, except -what is contained in the clauses for laying and collecting taxes, -imposts, excises, &c.; for borrowing money, and for making all laws -necessary and proper for carrying these powers into effect; and that -these do not authorize the establishment of a National Bank. - -To ascertain this, the gentleman from Virginia proposes a candid -interpretation of the constitution, which we shall agree to, and he -offers to assist us with his rules of interpretation, for his good -intentions in doing which we give him full credit; but as he -acknowledges that he has been long decided against the authority of -Congress to establish a bank, and is therefore prejudiced against the -measure; as his rules, being made for the occasion, are the result of -his interpretation, and not his interpretation of the rules; as they are -not sanctioned by law exposition, or approved by experienced judges of -the law, they cannot be considered as a criterion for regulating the -judgment of the House, but may, if admitted, prove an _ignis fatuus_ -that may lead to destruction. - -We wish not, however, by establishing our own rules of interpretation, -to enjoy the privilege which is denied to the gentleman, but will meet -him on fair ground, by applying rules which have the sanction mentioned; -and as the learned _Judge Blackstone_ has laid down such, it is presumed -the gentleman from Virginia will not contend for a preference, or refuse -to be tried by this standard. - -The Judge observes: "That the fairest and most rational method to -interpret the will of the legislator is by exploring his intentions at -the time when the law was made by signs the most natural and probable; -and these signs are either the words, the context, the subject-matter, -the effect and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law." With -respect to words, the Judge observes, that "they are generally -understood in their usual and most ordinary signification, not so much -regarding the grammar as their general and popular use." - -The gentlemen on different sides of the question do not disagree with -respect to the meaning of the terms _taxes_, _duties_, _imposts_, -_excises_, &c., or of _borrowing money_, but of the word _necessary_: -and the question is, what is the general and popular meaning of this -term? Perhaps the answer to the question will be truly this, that in a -general and popular one the word does not admit of a definite meaning, -but that this varies according to the subject and circumstances. With -respect to the subject for instance, if the people, speaking of a -garrison besieged by a superior force, and without provisions, or a -prospect of relief, should say it was under the necessity of -surrendering, they would mean a physical necessity, for troops cannot -subsist long without provisions; but if speaking of a debtor, the people -should say he was frightened by his creditor and then reduced to the -necessity of paying his debts, they would mean a legal, which is very -different from a physical necessity; for although the debtor, by -refusing payment, might be confined, he would be allowed subsistence, -and the necessity he was under to pay his debts would not extend beyond -his confinement. Again, if it should be said that a client is under the -necessity of giving to his lawyer more than legal fees, the general -popular meaning of necessity would, in this instance, be very different -from that in the other; the necessity would neither be physical nor -legal, but artificial, or, if I may be allowed the expression, a -long-robe necessity. - -The meaning of the word "_necessary_," varies also according to -circumstances; for although Congress have power to levy and collect -taxes, duties, &c., to borrow money, and to determine the time, quantum, -mode, and every regulation necessary and proper for supplying the -Treasury, yet the people would apply a different meaning to the word -"necessary" under different circumstances. For instance, without a -sufficiency of precious metals for a medium, laws creating an artificial -medium would be generally thought necessary for carrying into effect the -power to levy and collect taxes; but if there was a sufficiency of such -metals, those laws would not generally be thought necessary. Again, if -specie was scarce, and the credit of the Government low, collateral -measures would be by the people thought necessary for obtaining public -loans: but not so, if the case was reversed. Or, if part of the States -should be invaded and overrun by an enemy, it would be thought necessary -to levy on the rest heavy taxes, and collect them in a short period, and -to take stock, grain, and other articles from the citizens without their -consent, for the common defence; but in a time of peace and safety, such -measures would be supposed unnecessary. Instances may be multiplied in -other respects; but it is conceived that these are sufficient to show -that the popular and general meaning of the word "necessary," varies -according to the subject and circumstances. - -The second rule of interpretation relates to the _context_, and the -Judge conceives that "if words are still dubious, we may establish their -meaning by the context; thus the preamble is often called in to help the -construction of an act of Parliament." The constitution, in the present -case, is the great law of the people, who are themselves the sovereign -Legislature, and the preamble is in these words: "We, the people of the -United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, -insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote -the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves -and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the -United States of America." - -These are the objects for which the constitution was established, and in -administering it we should always keep them in view. And here it is -remarkable, that although the common defence and general welfare are -held up in the preamble among the primary objects of attention, they are -again mentioned in the eighth section of the first article, whereby we -are enjoined in levying taxes, duties, &c., particularly to regard the -common defence and general welfare; indeed common sense dictates the -measure; for the security of our property, families, and liberty--of -every thing dear to us, depends on our ability to defend them. The -means, therefore, for attaining this object, we ought not to omit a -year, month, or even a day, if we could avoid it; and we are never -provided for defence unless prepared for sudden emergencies. Should -Government be surprised in this case, it would be as dishonorable as for -a general to be surprised in a state of warfare, and the event to the -community may be much more fatal. If provision then for sudden -emergencies is indispensable, it must be evident that it will depend in -a great measure on the ability of the Government to command, at all -times, for this purpose, a sufficient sum of money, which is justly -denominated the sinews of war; and how is this to be effected? By -emissions of bills of credit? During the Revolution, bills of credit, it -must be acknowledged, have done wonders; they have, in conflict with the -banks, Treasury, and public credit of Great Britain, risen superior to -them all, and have since died a natural death. We have honored them with -a funeral pile; we now bid peace to their manes, and devoutly hope that -bills of credit will for ever be extinct in the United States. Are we to -depend, then, on taxes for commanding money in cases of urgent -necessity? These, as has been shown by other gentlemen, will be too slow -in their operations, unless, indeed, we should levy a tax for drawing -into and locking up in the Treasury three or four millions of dollars; a -law which would be universally considered as unnecessary and improper. - -By loans, and loans only, can provision be made for sudden emergencies; -but if loans should be made previously to an emergency, the people would -be unnecessarily burdened by the interest thereof, and most of the other -evils would ensue that would arise from previous taxes; and if they were -to be made at an emergency, without previous arrangements, of whom are -we to borrow? Of individuals? These cannot be depended on, as has been -fully proved by our own experience at the commencement of the -Revolution. Are we to apply to the banks already established in the -States for loans? These can no more be depended upon than individuals; -for stockholders having not more attachment to Government than other -citizens, would, in cases of public danger, attend to the preservation -of their property by other means than loaning it to Government. And -moreover, the united capitals of all the banks existing in the Union -would be insufficient for Government, for they do not amount to a -million and a half of dollars, and only a part in this could, in any -case, be reasonably expected on loan. - -Are we to apply to foreign banks or individuals? These, as has been -shown, are too remote; and if not, we have not been able, without the -assistance of an ally, to obtain foreign loans during the war, and -perhaps the power on whose assistance we may rely would be hostile to -us. Such dependence, then, as has been stated, would necessarily leave -us in a deplorable state; and it must be evident that a previous -arrangement to aid loans in cases of sudden emergency is necessary and -proper in the general and popular use of the term, inasmuch as any other -measure that Congress can adopt would be inadequate to the purpose of -common defence; and what previous arrangement can we make so proper as -that of a National Bank? If gentlemen in the opposition know of any, let -them produce it, and let the merits of it be investigated; for it is -unreasonable to propose a rejection of this plan without producing a -better. The plan proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, which is now -the subject of discussion, does honor, like all his other measures, to -his head and heart; it will be mutually beneficial to the stockholders -and to Government, and consequently so to the people. The stockholders -by this plan will be deeply interested in supporting Government; because -three-quarters of their capital, consisting of funded certificates, -depend on the existence of Government, which therefore is the prop of -their capital, the main pillar that supports the bank. Again, the credit -of Government, which is immaterial to the other banks, is essential to -the National Bank, for the annual interest of three-quarters of its -capital, which must form a great share of its profits, will depend -altogether on the credit of Government, and produce, on the part of the -stockholders, the strongest attachment to it. On the other hand, it will -be the interest of Government to support the Bank, as well on account of -the benefits which the public will generally derive from the -institution, and the profits arising from the shares of Government in -the stock which will be hereafter noticed, as of the supplies of money -which it will be for the interest of the Bank to furnish in cases of -urgent necessity. Whenever these exist, Congress may lay a tax for -supplying the Treasury, and anticipate it with certainty by means of the -National Bank. It being then our duty to provide for the common defence -in cases of emergency, the provision must evidently be made by taxes, -loans, or by arrangements for obtaining the latter on the earliest -notice; and previous taxes and loans being oppressive, improper, and -unnecessary, the arrangements for aiding loans become indispensable, and -a bank consequently necessary and constitutional. - -The third rule of the Judge, relative to the "subject-matter" of a law, -it is unnecessary to apply, because the members agree in their ideas -relative to the meaning of the terms taxes, duties, loans, &c. - -The fourth rule, which relates to "effects and consequences," is -important; and here the learned Judge observes that "as to effects and -consequences, the rule is, where the words bear none, or a very absurd -signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from -the received sense of them." In the present case, the gentlemen in the -opposition generally, as well as the gentleman first up from Virginia, -give the whole clause by which Congress are authorized "to make all laws -necessary and proper," &c., no meaning whatever; for they say, the -former Congress had the same power under the Confederation without this -clause as the present Congress have with it. The _Federalist_ is quoted -on this occasion, but although the author of it discovered great -ingenuity, this part of his performance I consider as a political -heresy. His doctrine, indeed, was calculated to lull the consciences of -those who differed in opinion with him at that time; and having -accomplished his object, he is probably desirous that it may die with -the opposition itself. The rule in this case says, that where the words -bear no signification, we must deviate a little; and as this deviation -cannot be made by giving the words less than no meaning, it must be made -by a more liberal construction than is given by gentlemen in the -opposition. Thus their artillery is turned on themselves, for their own -interpretation is an argument against itself. - -The last mentioned rule relates to the spirit and reason of the law, and -the Judge is of opinion "that the most universal and effectual way of -discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by -considering the reason and spirit of it, or the cause which moved the -Legislature to enact it". The causes which produced the constitution -were an imperfect union, want of public and private justice, internal -commotions, a defenceless community, neglect of the public welfare, and -danger to our liberties. These are known to be the causes not only by -the preamble of the constitution, but also from our own knowledge of the -history of the times that preceded the establishment of it. If these -weighty causes produced the constitution, and it not only gives power -for removing them, but also authorizes Congress to make all laws -necessary and proper for carrying these powers into effect, shall we -listen to assertions that these words have no meaning, and that this -constitution has not more energy than the old? Shall we thus unnerve the -Government, leave the Union, as it was under the Confederation, -defenceless against a banditti of Creek Indians, and thus relinquish the -protection of its citizens? Or shall we, by a candid and liberal -construction of the powers expressed in the constitution, promote the -great and important objects thereof? Each member must determine for -himself; I shall without hesitation choose the latter, and leave the -people and States to determine whether or not I am pursuing their true -interest. If it is inquired where we are to draw the line of a liberal -construction, I will also inquire where the line of restriction is to be -drawn? The interpretation of the constitution, like the prerogative of a -sovereign, may be abused; but from hence the disuse of either cannot be -inferred. In the exercise of prerogative the minister is responsible for -his advice to his sovereign, and the members of either House are -responsible to their constituents for their conduct in construing the -constitution. We act at our peril; if our conduct is directed to the -attainment of the great objects of Government, it will be approved, and -not otherwise; but this cannot operate as a reason to prevent our -discharging the trusts reposed in us. - -Let us now compare the different modes of reasoning on this subject, and -determine which is right, for both cannot be. - -The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) has urged the dangerous -tendency of a liberal construction; but which is most dangerous, a -liberal or a destructive interpretation? The liberty we have taken in -interpreting the constitution, we conceive to be necessary, and it -cannot be denied to be useful in attaining the objects of it; but whilst -he denies us this liberty, he grants to himself a right to annul a part, -and a very important part of the constitution. The same principle that -will authorize a destruction of part, will authorize the destruction of -the whole of the constitution; and if gentlemen have a right to make -such rules, they have an equal right to make others for enlarging the -powers of the constitution, and indeed of forming a despotism. Thus, if -we take the gentleman for our pilot, we shall be wrecked on the reef -which he cautions us to avoid. - -The gentleman has referred us to the last article of the amendments -proposed to the constitution by Congress, which provides that the powers -not delegated to Congress, or prohibited to the States, shall rest in -them or the people; and the question is, what powers are delegated? Does -the gentleman conceive that such only are delegated as are expressed? If -so, he must admit that our whole code of laws is unconstitutional. This -he disavows, and yields to the necessity of interpretation, which, by a -fair and candid application of established rules of construction to the -constitution, authorizes, as has been shown, the measure under -consideration. - -The usage of Congress has also been referred to; and if we look at their -acts under the existing constitution, we shall find they are generally -the result of a liberal construction. I will mention but two. The first -relates to the establishment of the Executive Departments, and gives to -the President the power of removing officers. As the constitution is -silent on this subject, the power mentioned, by the gentleman's own -reasoning, is vested in the States or the people; he, however, contended -for an assumption of the power, and when assumed, urged that it should -be vested in the President, although, like the power of appointment, it -was by a respectable minority in both Houses conceived that it should -have been vested in the President and Senate. His rule of interpretation -then was therefore more liberal than it is now. In the other case, -Congress determined by law, with the sanction of the President, when and -where they should hold their next session, although the constitution -provides that this power should rest solely in the two Houses. The -gentleman also advocated this measure, and yet appears to be -apprehensive of the consequences that may result from a construction of -the constitution which admits of a National Bank. But from which of -these measures is danger to be apprehended? The only danger from our -interpretation would be the exercise by Congress of a general power to -form corporations; but the dangers resulting from the gentleman's -interpretations, in the cases alluded to, are very different; for what -may we not apprehend from the precedent of having assumed a power on -which the constitution was silent, and from having annexed it to the -Supreme Executive? If we have this right in one instance, we may extend -it to others, and make him a despot. And here I think it necessary to -declare, that such is my confidence in the wisdom, integrity, and -justice of the Chief Magistrate, as that I should be at ease, if my -life, liberty, and property were at his disposal; but this is a trust -which I am not authorized to make for my constituents; and as his -successors in office will possess equal powers, but may not possess -equal virtues, caution with respect to them is necessary. Again, what -may be the result of the precedent relating to the session of Congress? -If we had a right by law to determine where the next Congress should -hold their session, one Congress may oblige another to sit in Kentucky, -or in the intended State Yazoo, under the protection of a Choctaw chief, -or his Excellency, Governor Tallan. It must therefore be evident that -the usage of Congress in both instances is against the gentleman, and -that the dangers from the precedent of establishing a bank are -comparatively small to those resulting from the other measures referred -to. - -The gentleman from Virginia has endeavored to support his interpretation -of the constitution by the sense of the Federal Convention; but how is -this to be obtained? By applying proper rules of interpretation? If so, -the sense of the Convention is in favor of the bill; or are we to depend -on the memory of the gentleman for a history of their debates, and from -thence to collect their sense? This would be improper, because the -memories of different gentlemen would probably vary, as they had already -done, with respect to those facts; and if not, the opinions of the -individual members who debated are not to be considered as the opinions -of the Convention. Indeed, if they were, no motion was made in that -Convention, and therefore none could be rejected for establishing a -National Bank; and the measure which the gentleman has referred to was a -proposition merely to enable Congress to erect commercial corporations, -which was, and always ought to be, negatived. - -The gentleman's arguments respecting the sense of the State Conventions -have as little force as those relating to the Federal Convention. The -debates of the State Conventions, as published by the short-hand -writers, were generally partial and mutilated; in this, if the -publications are to be relied on, the arguments were all on one side of -the question; for there is not in the record, which is said to contain -the Pennsylvania debates, a word against the ratification of the -constitution; although we all know that arguments were warmly urged on -both sides. - -The gentleman has quoted the opinions, as recorded in the debates of -this State and North Carolina, of two of our learned judges; but the -speech of one member is not to be considered as expressing the sense of -a convention; and if it was, we have no record which can be depended on -of such speeches. Indeed, had even this been the case, the Union was at -that time divided into two great parties, one of which feared the loss -of the Union if the constitution was not ratified unconditionally, and -the other the loss of our liberties if it was. The object on either side -was so important as perhaps to induce the parties to depart from candor, -and to call in the aid of art, flattery, professions of friendship, -promises of office, and even good cheer; and when these failed, the -_Federal Bull_ was published, denouncing political death and destruction -to anti-federal infidels. Under such circumstances, the opinions of -great men ought not to be considered as authorities, and in many -instances could not be recognized by themselves. - -Mr. G. then observing that the sense of the States respecting a bank -would be best ascertained by their legislative acts, showed, from the -journals of Congress, that when restrained by the Confederation from -exercising any powers but what were expressly delegated, Congress had, -without any authority, established a bank whose capital might extend to -ten millions of dollars; and had not only pledged the faith of the Union -not to erect any other, but had recommended it to the States to prohibit -any State establishment of the kind, and had also determined that the -bank bills should be receivable in the taxes and duties of every State. -That the States did not remonstrate against, or tacitly acquiesce in, -but actually supported the measures of Congress relative to the bank, -whilst the war continued, and after the peace. That this was the -strongest evidence the States could give that they thought the measure -salutary, and had no objection to it on the ground of its being -unconstitutional. He then urged, that if the States and the people at -large had no objection to a bank in that case, they could not in this; -and inquired whether there was any evidence of their disapprobation of -such an institution in the debates of their Conventions or propositions -for amendments? To this he answered in the negative, and urged, that -whilst the Conventions were silent on the subject, and had no objections -to such a measure, several of them had proposed amendments to the -constitution for restraining Congress from establishing commercial -corporations; which evinced their disapprobation of such institutions, -and admitted at the same time, in some degree, the power of Congress, -under the existing constitution, to form them. - -Mr. G. then showed, that as a monopoly had been urged as an objection to -the bill, no such consequence could result from it; for the bill does -not restrain State or private banks, or even individuals, from -negotiations of a similar nature with those permitted to the -stockholders; nor does it restrain the States from forming similar -corporations. This plan has not a feature of monopoly, and the gentlemen -who oppose it contend for a bank which, according to its original -institution, was founded in monopoly. - -He then answered the arguments urged against the authority of Congress -to enable corporations to hold lands, when they had no power themselves -of purchasing and holding land; and showed, that although Congress are -restrained from purchasing lands, (except in certain cases,) and from -exercising over the same exclusive legislation, yet that they may hold -lands obtained by execution, conquest, and by other means as well as by -those clauses of the constitution which relate to lands now belonging to -the Union; and that Congress had often invested others with powers which -they themselves could not exercise. - -He then noticed the argument, that, by a law of Virginia, notes payable -to the bearer, or order, would not circulate in that State, and observed -that this law could not be supposed to extend to bank notes; and if it -did, it would be null and void, because the constitution of the Union, -and laws, made in pursuance thereof, were paramount to the laws and -constitutions of the several States. Having considered the arguments -against the constitutionality of the bill, he entered into the policy -and utility of the measure. - - -TUESDAY, February 8. - -_Bank of the United States._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the bill for incorporating the -Bank of the United States. - -The question still being on the passage of the bill, - -Mr. VINING apologized for rising to offer his sentiments on this -subject, which had been already so ably discussed; but considering the -nature of the objections as arising from constitutional principles, it -had acquired an importance which would justify his troubling the House -with some remarks. - -He began by noticing the leading argument of Mr. MADISON respecting the -sense of the Continental Convention on the power proposed to be -exercised by Congress in this bill. He showed that the opinion of the -gentleman, in this instance, was, if not singular, different from that -of his contemporaries; at least a similar objection had not been started -by those gentlemen of the Senate, who had been members of the -Convention; but granting that the opinion of the gentleman from Virginia -had been the full sense of the members of the Convention, their opinion -at that day, he observed, is not a sufficient authority by which for -Congress at the present time to construe the constitution. - -Mr. V., in explaining the powers proposed by the bill to be given to the -corporation of the Bank, adverted to the particular power of "making -rules and regulations not contrary to law." He showed that this term law -means the common law; and alluded to the inquiry of Mr. MADISON, as to -what law was intended by this clause, who, in answering his own -question, said, "that if the laws of the United States were intended, -the power contemplated was dangerous and unconstitutional, as those laws -were very few in number." - -Mr. V. observed, that the restriction contended for by the gentleman as -the result of his objection, would annihilate the most essential rights -and privileges of the citizens of the United States. He then observed, a -corporation is nothing more than constituting a body with powers to -effect certain objects in a combined capacity, which an individual may -do in his individual capacity, agreeable to the usage and customs of -common law. - -Adverting to the act by which the United States became a free and -independent nation, he said, from that declaration, solemnly recognized -at home and abroad, they derive all the powers appertaining to a nation -thus circumstanced, and consequently the power under consideration. He -traced the origin of corporations to the time of Numa, the first of -which was for agricultural purposes; they were afterwards extended to -other objects; and from that day to this, all civilized and independent -nations have been in the practice of creating them; and what do they -amount to but this--enabling a number of persons, in a combined -capacity, to do that to a more certain effect than an individual may do; -but subject to the control of common law, in all its regulations and -transactions. - -On the doctrine of construction, as applied to the constitution, he -observed, that on some occasions the constitution is like the sensitive -plant, which shrinks from the smallest touch; on others it is like the -sturdy oak, which braves the force of thunder. He referred to the act -containing the power of removability; in which the utmost latitude of -construing the constitution was contended for and adopted; and, said he, -the funding system cannot be defended on any other principle than of -implication. - -He then inquired, of what right does this incorporation deprive a single -citizen? And can an act possibly meet the disapprobation of a single -person which does not infringe his rights, and which puts money into his -pocket? I think not. He insisted that the power of Congress alone was -equal to establishing a bank competent to creating a currency which -shall pervade all parts of the Union; the paper of the State banks -cannot circulate beyond the bounds of the particular States. - -From the restrictions to the Government contended for by the opposers of -the bill, he compared the constitution to a horse finely proportioned in -every respect to the eye, and elegantly caparisoned, but deficient in -one, and the most essential requisite, that of ability to carry the -owner to his journey's end; he had rather, he said, mount the old -Confederation, and drag on in the old way, than be amused with the -appearance of a Government so essentially defective. - -Mr. MADISON observed, that the present is a question which ought to be -conducted with moderation and candor; and, therefore, there is no -occasion to have recourse to those tragic representations which have -been adduced. Warmth and passion should be excluded from the discussion -of a subject which ought to depend on the cool dictates of reason for -its decision. - -Adverting to the observation of Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina,) "that it -would be a deplorable thing for the Senate of the United States to have -fallen on a decision which violates the constitution," he inquired, What -does the reasoning of the gentleman tend to show but this, that from -respect to the Senate this House ought to sanction their decisions? And -from hence it will follow, that the President of the United States -ought, out of respect to both, to sanction their joint proceedings; but -he could remind the gentleman of his holding different sentiments on -another occasion. - -Mr. M. then enlarged on the exact balance or equipoise contemplated by -the constitution, to be observed and maintained between the several -branches of Government; and showed, that except this idea was preserved, -the advantages of different independent branches would be lost, and -their separate deliberations and determinations be entirely useless. - -In describing a corporation, he observed, that the powers proposed to be -given are such as do not exist antecedent to the existence of the -corporation; these powers are very extensive in their nature, and to -which a principle of perpetuity may be annexed. - -He waived a reply to Mr. VINING's observations on the common law, [in -which that gentleman had been lengthy and minute, in order to invalidate -Mr. MADISON's objections to the power proposed to be given to the Bank, -to make rules and regulations, not contrary to law.] Mr. M. said the -question would involve a very lengthy discussion; and other objects more -intimately connected with the subject remained to be considered. - -The power of granting charters, he observed, is a great and important -power, and ought not to be exercised unless we find ourselves expressly -authorized to grant them. Here he dilated on the great and extensive -influence that incorporated societies had on public affairs in Europe. -They are powerful machines, which have always been found competent to -effect objects on principles in a great measure independent of the -people. - -He argued against the influence of the precedent to be established by -the bill; for though it has been said, that the charter is to be granted -only for a term of years, yet he contended, that granting the powers on -any principle is granting them in _perpetuum_; and assuming this right -on the part of the Government involves the assumption of every power -whatever. - -Noticing the arguments in favor of the bill, he said, it had been -observed that "Government necessarily possesses every power." However -true this idea may be in the theory, he denied that it applied to the -Government of the United States. - -Here he read the restrictive clause in the constitution; and then -observed, that he saw no pass over this limit. - -The preamble to the constitution, said he, has produced a new mine of -power; but this is the first instance he had heard of, in which the -preamble has been adduced for such a purpose. In his opinion, the -preamble only states the objects of the Confederation, and the -subsequent clauses designate the express powers by which those objects -are to be obtained; and a mean is proposed through which to acquire -those that may be found still requisite, more fully to effect the -purposes of the Confederation. - -It is said, "there is a field of legislation yet unexplored." He had -often heard this language; but he confessed he did not understand it. Is -there a single blade of grass--is there any property in existence in the -United States, which is not a subject of legislation, either of the -particular States, or of the United States? He contended that the -exercise of this power, on the part of the United States, involves, to -all intents and purposes, every power which an individual State may -exercise. On this principle, he denied the right of Congress to make use -of a bank to facilitate the collection of taxes. He did not, however, -admit the idea, that the institution would conduce to that object. The -bank notes are to be equal to gold and silver, and consequently will be -as difficult to obtain as the specie. By means of the objects of trade -on which gold and silver are employed, there will be an influx of those -articles; but paper being substituted, will fill those channels which -would otherwise be occupied by the precious metals. This, experience -shows, is the uniform effect of such a substitution. - -The right of Congress to regulate trade is adduced as an argument in -favor of this of creating a corporation; but what has this bill to do -with trade? Would any plain man suppose that this bill had any thing to -do with trade? - -He noticed the observation respecting the utility of banks to aid the -Government with loans. He denied the necessity of the institution to aid -the Government in this respect. Great Britain, he observed, did not -depend on such institutions; she borrows from various sources. - -Banks, it is said, are necessary to pay the interest of the public debt. -Then they ought to be established in the places where that interest is -paid; but can any man say, that the bank notes will circulate at par in -Georgia? From the example in Scotland, we know that they cannot be made -equal to specie, remote from the place where they can be immediately -converted into coin; they must depreciate in case of a demand for -specie; and if there is no moral certainty that the interest can be -paid by these bank bills, will the Government be justified in depriving -itself of the power of establishing banks in different parts of the -Union? - -We reason, and often with advantage, from British models; but in the -present instance there is a great dissimilarity of circumstances. The -bank notes of Great Britain do not circulate universally. To make the -circumstances parallel, it ought to have been assumed as a fact, that -banks are established in various parts of Great Britain, at which the -interest of the national debt is paid; but the fact is, it is only paid -in one place. - -The clause of the constitution which has been so often recurred to, and -which empowers Congress to dispose of its property, he supposed referred -only to the property left at the conclusion of the war, and has no -reference to the moneyed property of the United States. - -The clause which empowers Congress to pass all laws necessary, &c., has -been brought forward repeatedly by the advocates of the bill; he noticed -the several constructions of this clause which had been offered. The -conclusion which he drew from the commentary of the gentleman from -Massachusetts, (Mr. GERRY,) was, that Congress may do what they please; -and recurring to the opinion of that gentleman in 1787, he said the -powers of the constitution were then dark, inexplicable, and dangerous; -but now, perhaps, as the result of experience, they are clear and -luminous! - -The constructions of the constitution, he asserted, which have been -maintained on this occasion, go to the subversion of every power -whatever in the several States; but we are told, for our comfort, that -the judges will rectify our mistakes. How are the judges to determine in -the case; are they to be guided in their decisions by the rules of -expediency? - -It has been asked, that if those minute powers of the constitution were -thought to be necessary, is it supposable that the great and important -power on the table was not intended to be given? Mr. M. interpreted this -circumstance in a quite different way, viz: if it was thought necessary -to specify in the constitution those minute powers, it would follow that -more important powers would have been explicitly granted, had they been -contemplated. - -The Western Territory business, he observed, was a case _sui generis_, -and therefore cannot be cited with propriety. West Point, so often -mentioned, he said, was purchased by the United States, pursuant to law, -and the consent of the State of New York is supposed, if it has not been -expressly granted; but, on any occasion, does it follow that one -violation of the constitution is to be justified by another? - -The permanent residence bill, he conceived, was entirely irrelative to -the subject; but he conceived it might be justified on truly -constitutional principles. - -The act vesting in the President of the United States the power of -removability has been quoted; he recapitulated, in a few words, his -reasons for being in favor of that bill. - -The Bank of North America he had opposed, as he considered the -institution as a violation of the Confederation. The State of -Massachusetts, he recollected, voted with him on that occasion. The Bank -of North America was, however, the child of necessity; as soon as the -war was over, it ceased to operate as to Continental purposes. But, -asked he, are precedents in war to justify violations of private and -State rights in a time of peace? And did the United States pass laws to -punish the counterfeiting the notes of that bank? They did not, being -convinced of the invalidity of any such law; the bank, therefore, took -shelter under the authority of the State. - -The energetic administration of this Government is said to be connected -with this institution. Mr. M. here stated the principles on which he -conceived this Government ought to be administered; and added, other -gentlemen may have had other ideas on the subject, and may have -consented to the ratification of the constitution on different -principles and expectations; but he considered the enlightened opinion -and affection of the people the only solid basis for the support of this -Government. - -Mr. M. then stated his objections to the several parts of the bill. The -first article he objected to was the duration. A period of twenty years -was, to this country, as a period of a century in the history of other -countries; there was no calculating for the events which might take -place. He urged the ill policy of granting so long a term, from the -experience of the Government in respect to some treaties, which, though -found inconvenient, could not now be altered. - -The different classes of the public creditors, he observed, were not all -put on an equal footing by this bill; but in the bill for the disposal -of the Western Territory this had been thought essential. The holders of -six per cent. securities will derive undue advantages. Creditors at a -distance, and the holders of three per cent. securities, ought to be -considered, as the public good is most essentially promoted by an equal -attention to the interest of all. - -I admit, said he, that the Government ought to consider itself as the -trustee of the public on this occasion, and therefore should avail -itself of the best disposition of the public property. - -In this view of the subject, he objected to the bill, as the public, he -thought, ought to derive greater advantages from the institution than -those proposed. In case of a universal circulation of the notes of the -proposed bank, the profits will be so great that the Government ought to -receive a very considerable sum for granting the charter. - -There are other defects in the bill, which render it proper and -necessary, in my opinion, that it should undergo a revision and -amendment before it passes into a law. The power vested by the bill in -the Executive to borrow of the bank, he thought was objectionable; and -the right to establish subordinate banks ought not to be delegated to -any set of men under Heaven. - -The public opinion has been mentioned. If the appeal to the public -opinion is suggested with sincerity, we ought to let our constituents -have an opportunity to form an opinion on the subject. - -He concluded by saying, he should move for the previous question. - -The previous question, "Shall the main question now be put?" being -determined in the affirmative, - -Mr. GERRY rose to reply to Mr. MADISON; but the House discovering an -impatience to have the main question put, after a few remarks, he waived -any further observations. - -The yeas and nays were then taken as follows, on the passage of the -bill: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Bourne, Cadwalader, - Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, - Hartley, Hathorn, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Leonard, - Livermore, P. Muhlenberg, Partridge, Rensselaer, Schureman, - Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sevier, Sherman, Sylvester, - Sinnickson, Smith, (of Maryland,) Smith, (of South - Carolina,) Steele, Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, Vining, - Wadsworth, and Wynkoop--39. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke, - Carroll, Contee, Gale, Grout, Giles, Jackson, Lee, Madison. - Mathews, Moore, Parker, Stone, Tucker, White, and - Williamson--20. - - -MONDAY, February 14. - -_Commerce with England._ - -The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and House of Representatives:_ - - Soon after I was called to the administration of the - Government, I found it important to come to an - understanding with the Court of London, on several points - interesting to the United States; and particularly to know - whether they were disposed to enter into arrangements, by - mutual consent, which might fix the commerce between the - two nations on principles of reciprocal advantage. For this - purpose, I authorized informal conferences with their - Ministers; and from these, I do not infer any disposition, - on their part, to enter into any arrangements merely - commercial. I have thought it proper to give you this - information, as it might, at some time, have influence on - matters under your consideration. - - GEO. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _February 14, 1791_. - - -THURSDAY, March 3. - -_Jails of the States._ - -On motion that the House do come to the following resolution: - - Whereas Congress did, by a resolution of the 23d of - September, 1789, recommend to the several States to pass - laws making it expressly the duty of the keepers of their - jails to receive, and safely keep therein, all prisoners - committed under authority of the United States: In order, - therefore, to ensure the administration of justice: - - _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the - United States of America in Congress assembled_, That, in - case any State shall not have complied with the said - recommendation, the Marshal in such State, under the - direction of the Judge of the District, be authorized to - hire a convenient place to serve as a temporary jail, and - to make the necessary provision for the safe-keeping of - prisoners committed under the authority of the United - States, until permanent provision shall be made by law for - that purpose; and the said Marshal shall be allowed his - reasonable expenses incurred for the above purposes, to be - paid out of the Treasury of the United States. - -It was resolved in the affirmative. - -_Session Closed._ - -The business of the session being gone through, on motion, - - _Resolved_, That the thanks of the House of Representatives - of the United States be presented to Frederick Augustus - Muhlenberg, in testimony of their approbation of his - conduct in the chair, and in the execution of the difficult - and important trust reposed in him as Speaker of the said - House. - -It was resolved, unanimously: whereupon - -Mr. SPEAKER made his acknowledgments to the House, in manner following: - - _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_ - - This unexpected mark of your approbation of my conduct has - made so deep an impression on my mind, that I cannot find - words to express the high sense of gratitude I entertain on - this occasion. - - I have not vanity sufficient to suppose that my feeble, - though well-meant, endeavors merit so great a reward; for - it was your kind indulgence and support alone which enabled - me to go through the duties of the station which you were - pleased to assign me; but I shall ever consider this - distinguished and honorable testimony as the most fortunate - circumstance in my life. - - Gentlemen, I most sincerely thank you. May every possible - happiness attend you and every individual of this body, and - may your zealous endeavors to promote the welfare of our - beloved country, which I have so long and so often been a - witness to, be crowned with unbounded success. - -_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 without day, and that the Clerk of this House do go with the -said message. - -The Clerk accordingly went with the said message, and being returned, - -A message was received from the Senate, notifying that the Senate, -having completed the legislative business before them, are now about to -adjourn; whereupon, - -Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without day. - - - - -SECOND CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION. - -HELD AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, OCTOBER 24, 1791, TO MAY 8, 1792. - - -LIST OF MEMBERS. - -SENATORS. - -_New Hampshire._--John Langdon, Paine Wingate. - -_Vermont._--S. R. Bradley, Moses Robinson. - -_Massachusetts._--George Cabot, Caleb Strong. - -_Rhode Island._--Theodore Foster, Joseph Stanton. - -_Connecticut._--Oliver Ellsworth, Roger Sherman. - -_New York._--Aaron Burr, Rufus King. - -_New Jersey._--Philemon Dickinson, John Rutherford. - -_Pennsylvania._--Robert Morris, James Ross. - -_Delaware._--Richard Bassett, George Read. - -_Maryland._--Charles Carroll, John Henry. - -_Virginia._--Richard H. Lee, James Monroe. - -_North Carolina._--Benjamin Hawkins, Samuel Johnston. - -_South Carolina._--Pierce Butler, Ralph Izard. - -_Georgia._--William Few, James Gunn. - - -REPRESENTATIVES. - -_New Hampshire._--Nicholas Gilman, S. Livermore, Jeremiah Smith. - -_Vermont._--Nathaniel Niles, Israel Smith. - -_Massachusetts._--Fisher Ames, S. Bourne, Elbridge Gerry, Benjamin -Goodhue, George Leonard, T. Sedgwick, George Thatcher, Artemas Ward. - -_Rhode Island._--Benjamin Bourne. - -_Connecticut._--James Hillhouse, Amasa Learned, Jonathan Sturges, -Jonathan Trumbull, Jeremiah Wadsworth. - -_New York._--Egbert Benson, James Gordon, John Laurance, C. C. -Schoonmaker, Peter Sylvester, T. Tredwell. - -_New Jersey._--Elias Boudinot, Jonathan Dayton, Aaron Kitchell. - -_Pennsylvania._--William Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Andrew Gregg, -Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, Israel Jacobs, John W. Kittera, -Frederick A. Muhlenberg. - -_Delaware._--John Vining. - -_Maryland._--Philip Key, William Pinkney, Joshua Seney, Updine -Sheredine, Samuel Sterrett, William Vans Murray. - -_Virginia._--John Browne, William B. Giles, Samuel Griffin, Richard -Bland Lee, James Madison, Andrew Moore, John Page, Josiah Parker, A. B. -Venable, Alexander White. - -_North Carolina._--John B. Ashe, Timothy Bloodworth, William B. Grove, -Nathaniel Macon, John Sevier, John Steele, Hugh Williamson. - -_South Carolina._--Robert Barnwell, Daniel Huger, William Smith, Thomas -Sumter, Thomas Tudor Tucker. - -_Georgia._--Abraham Baldwin, Anthony Wayne, Francis Willis. - - -PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE. - -MONDAY, October 24, 1791. - -This being the day fixed by law for the annual meeting of Congress, at -the first session of the second Congress, the following members of the -Senate appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats: - -JOHN ADAMS, Vice President and President of the Senate. - -JOHN LANGDON and PAINE WINGATE, from New Hampshire. - -CALEB STRONG and GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts. - -THEODORE FOSTER and JOSEPH STANTON, jr., from Rhode Island. - -ROGER SHERMAN, from Connecticut, in the place of WILLIAM S. JOHNSON, -resigned. - -AARON BURR, from New York. - -PHILEMON DICKINSON and JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey. - -ROBERT MORRIS, from Pennsylvania. - -GEORGE READ, from Delaware. - -SAMUEL JOHNSTON and BENJAMIN HAWKINS, from North Carolina. - -PIERCE BUTLER and RALPH IZARD, from South Carolina; and - -WILLIAM FEW, from Georgia. - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. Butler, Morris, and Dickinson, be a committee to -wait on the President of the United States, and inform him that a quorum -of the Senate is assembled, and ready to receive any communication he -may be pleased to make to them. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that -a quorum of the Senate is assembled and ready to proceed to business; -and that they have notified the President of the United States that they -are ready to receive such communications as he may be pleased to make to -them. - -Mr. IZARD, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the President -of the United States, agreeably to the resolution of the two Houses, of -this day, reported that they had executed the business, and that the -President of the United States proposed to-morrow, at 12 o'clock, to -meet the two Houses of Congress in the Senate Chamber. - - -TUESDAY, October 25. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that -the Senate are ready to meet them in the Senate Chamber, to receive any -communications the President of the United States may be pleased to make -to the two Houses of Congress; and that the usual seats will be assigned -them. - -The House of Representatives having accordingly taken their seats, the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the Senate Chamber, and -addressed both Houses of Congress as followeth:[39] - - _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - I meet you upon the present occasion with the feelings - which are naturally inspired by a strong impression of the - prosperous situation of our common country, and by a - persuasion, equally strong, that the labors of the session - which has just commenced will, under the guidance of a - spirit no less prudent than patriotic, issue in measures - conducive to the stability and increase of national - prosperity. - - Numerous as are the Providential blessings which demand our - grateful acknowledgments, the abundance with which another - year has again rewarded the industry of the husbandman is - too important to escape recollection. - - Your own observations in your respective situations will - have satisfied you of the progressive state of agriculture, - manufactures, commerce, and navigation. In tracing their - causes, you will have remarked, with particular pleasure, - the happy effects of that revival of confidence, public as - well as private, to which the Constitution and laws of the - United States have so eminently contributed; and you will - have observed, with no less interest, new and decisive - proofs of the increasing reputation and credit of the - nation. But you, nevertheless, cannot fail to derive - satisfaction from the confirmation of these circumstances, - which will be disclosed in the several official - communications that will be made to you in the course of - your deliberations. - - The rapid subscriptions to the Bank of the United States, - which completed the sum allowed to be subscribed in a - single day, is among the striking and pleasing evidences - which present themselves, not only of confidence in the - Government, but of resource in the community. - - In the interval of your recess, due attention has been paid - to the execution of the different objects which were - specially provided for by the laws and resolutions of the - last session. - - Among the most important of these, is the defence and - security of the Western frontiers. To accomplish it on the - most humane principles was a primary wish. - - Accordingly, at the same time that treaties have been - provisionally concluded, and other proper means used to - attach the wavering, and to confirm in their friendship the - well-disposed tribes of Indians, effectual measures have - been adopted to make those of a hostile description - sensible that a pacification was desired upon terms of - moderation and justice. - - These measures having proved unsuccessful, it became - necessary to convince the refractory of the power of the - United States to punish their depredations. Offensive - operations have therefore been directed, to be conducted, - however, as consistently as possible with the dictates of - humanity. Some of these have been crowned with full - success, and others are yet depending. The expeditions - which have been completed were carried on under the - authority, and at the expense, of the United States, by the - militia of Kentucky; whose enterprise, intrepidity, and - good conduct are entitled to peculiar commendation. - - Overtures of peace are still continued to the deluded - tribes, and considerable numbers of individuals belonging - to them have lately renounced all further opposition, - removed from their former situations, and placed themselves - under the immediate protection of the United States. - - It is sincerely to be desired, that all need of coercion in - future may cease; and that an intimate intercourse may - succeed, calculated to advance the happiness of the - Indians, and to attach them firmly to the United States. - - In order to this, it seems necessary-- - - That they should experience the benefits of an impartial - dispensation of justice. - - That the mode of alienating their lands, the main source of - discontent and war, should be so defined and regulated as - to obviate imposition, and, as far as may be practicable, - controversy concerning the reality and extent of the - alienations which are made. - - That commerce with them should be promoted under - regulations tending to secure an equitable deportment - towards them, and that such rational experiments should be - made, for imparting to them the blessings of civilization, - as may from time to time suit their condition. - - That the Executive of the United States should be enabled - to employ the means to which the Indians have been long - accustomed for uniting their immediate interests with the - preservation of peace. - - And that efficacious provision should be made for - inflicting adequate penalties upon all those who, by - violating their rights, shall infringe the treaties, and - endanger the peace of the Union. - - A system corresponding with the mild principles of religion - and philanthropy towards an unenlightened race of men, - whose happiness materially depends on the conduct of the - United States, would be as honorable to the national - character as conformable to the dictates of sound policy. - - Pursuant to the authority contained in the several acts on - that subject, a district of ten miles square, for the - permanent seat of the Government of the United States, has - been fixed, and announced by proclamation; which district - will comprehend lands on both sides of the river Potomac, - and the towns of Alexandria and Georgetown. A city has also - been laid out, agreeably to a plan which will be placed - before Congress. And, as there is a prospect, favored by - the rate of sales which have already taken place, of ample - funds for carrying on the necessary public buildings, there - is every expectation of their due progress. - - The completion of the census of the inhabitants, for which - provision was made by law, has been duly notified, - (excepting one instance in which the return has been - informal; and another, in which it has been omitted or - miscarried,) and the returns of the officers who were - charged with this duty, which will be laid before you, will - give you the pleasing assurance, that the present - population of the United States borders on four millions of - persons. - - _Gentlemen of the Senate:_ - - Two treaties which have been provisionally concluded with - the Cherokees and Six Nations of Indians, will be laid - before you for your consideration and ratification. - - _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_ - - In entering upon the discharge of your legislative trust, - you must anticipate, with pleasure, that many of the - difficulties, necessarily incident to the first - arrangements of a new Government, for an extensive country, - have been happily surmounted by the zealous and judicious - exertions of your predecessors, in co-operation with the - other branch of the Legislature. The important objects - which remain to be accomplished, will, I am persuaded, be - conducted upon principles equally comprehensive, and - equally well calculated for the advancement of the general - weal. - - It is particularly pleasing to me to be able to announce to - you that the revenues which have been established promise - to be adequate to their objects, and maybe permitted, if no - unforeseen exigency occurs, to supersede, for the present, - the necessity of any new burdens upon our constituents.[40] - - An object which will claim your early attention is a - provision for the current service of the ensuing year, - together with such ascertained demands upon the Treasury as - require to be immediately discharged, and such casualties - as may have arisen in the execution of the public business, - for which no specific appropriation may have yet been made; - of all which a proper estimate will be laid before you. - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - I shall content myself with a general reference to former - communications for several objects, upon which the urgency - of other affairs has hitherto postponed any definitive - resolution. Their importance will recall them to your - attention; and, I trust that the progress already made in - the most arduous arrangements of the Government will afford - you leisure to resume them with advantage. - - There are, however, some of them of which I cannot forbear - a more particular mention. These are: the Militia, the Post - Office and Post Roads, the Mint, Weights and Measures, and - a provision for the sale of the vacant lands of the United - States. - - The disorders in the existing currency, and especially the - scarcity of small change, a scarcity so peculiarly - distressing to the poorer classes, strongly recommend the - carrying into immediate effect the resolution already - entered into concerning the establishment of a Mint. - Measures have been taken pursuant to that resolution for - procuring some of the most necessary artists, together with - the requisite apparatus. - - A provision for the sale of the vacant lands of the United - States is particularly urged, among other reasons, by the - important considerations, that they are pledged as a fund - for reimbursing the public debt; that, if timely and - judiciously applied, they may save the necessity of - burthening our citizens with new taxes for the - extinguishment of the principal; and that, being free to - discharge the principal but in a limited proportion, no - opportunity ought to be lost for availing the public of its - right. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _October 25, 1791_. - -THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES having retired, and the two Houses -being separated, - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. BURR, CABOT, and JOHNSTON, be a committee to -prepare and report the draft of an Address to the President of the -United States, in answer to his Speech delivered this day to both Houses -of Congress. - -_Ordered_, That the Speech of the President of the United States, -delivered this day, be printed for the use of the Senate. - - -WEDNESDAY, October 26. - -RUFUS KING, from the State of New York, and JOHN HENRY, from the State -of Maryland, attended. - - -THURSDAY, October 27. - -The following message was received from the President of the United -States: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - I lay before you a copy of a letter, and of sundry - documents, which I have received from the Governor of - Pennsylvania, respecting certain persons who are said to - have fled from justice out of the State of Pennsylvania, - into that of Virginia; together with a report of the - Attorney General of the United States upon the same - subject. - - I have received from the Governor of North Carolina a copy - of an Act of the General Assembly of that State, - authorizing him to convey to the United States the right - and jurisdiction of the said State over one acre of land in - Ocracock Island, and ten acres on the Cape Island, within - the said State, for the purpose of erecting light-houses - thereon, together with the deed of the Governor, in - pursuance thereof, and the original conveyances made to the - State by the individual proprietors, which original - conveyances contain conditions that the light-house on - Ocracock shall be built before the first day of January, - 1801, and that on the Cape Island, before the eighth day of - October, 1800. And I have caused these several papers to be - deposited in the office of the Secretary of State. - - A statement of the Returns of the Enumeration of the - Inhabitants of the United States, which have been received, - will at this time be laid before you. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _October 27, 1791_. - -Mr. BURR reported, from the committee appointed to prepare an Address to -the President of the United States, in answer to his Speech to both. -Houses of Congress at the opening of the session. - -_Ordered_, That to-morrow be assigned to take the report into -consideration. - - -FRIDAY, October 28. - -Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate proceeded to take into -consideration the Address reported by the committee, in answer to the -Speech of the President of the United States, on the 24th instant, to -both Houses of Congress; which report was agreed to, as follows: - - _To the President of the United States:_ - - SIR: The Senate of the United States have received with the - highest satisfaction the assurances of public prosperity - contained in your Speech to both Houses. The multiplied - blessings of Providence have not escaped our notice, or - failed to excite our gratitude. - - The benefits which flow from the restoration of public and - private confidence are conspicuous and important; and the - pleasure with which we contemplate them is heightened by - your assurance of those further communications which shall - confirm their existence and indicate their source. - - While we rejoice in the success of those military - operations which have been directed against the hostile - Indians, we lament with you the necessity that has produced - them; and we participate the hope that the present prospect - of a general peace, on terms of moderation and justice, may - be wrought into complete and permanent effect; and that the - measures of Government may equally embrace the security of - our frontiers and the general interests of humanity. Our - solicitude to obtain which, will insure our zealous - attention to an object so warmly espoused by the principles - of benevolence, and so highly interesting to the honor and - welfare of the nation. - - The several subjects which you have particularly - recommended, and those which remain of former sessions, - will engage our early consideration. We are encouraged to - prosecute them with alacrity and steadiness, by the belief - that they will interest no passion but that for the general - welfare; by the assurance of concert, and by a view of - those arduous and important arrangements which have been - already accomplished. - - We observe, sir, the constancy and activity of your zeal - for the public good. The example will animate our efforts - to promote the happiness of our country. - -_Ordered_, That the Address to the President of the United States, in -answer to his Speech, be presented by the Vice President, attended by -the Senate; and that the committee which reported the Address wait on -the President of the United States, and desire to be informed at what -time and place he will receive the same. - - -MONDAY, October 31. - -JAMES MONROE, from the State of Virginia, attended, and took his seat. - -MOSES ROBINSON, from the State of Vermont, produced his credentials, and -took his seat in the Senate. - -Mr. BURR, from the committee appointed on the 28th to wait on the -President of the United States, reported, that it would be agreeable to -the President of the United States to receive the Address of the Senate, -in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, on Monday next at -12 o'clock. - -Whereupon, the Senate waited on the President of the United States at -his own house, and the VICE PRESIDENT, in their name, communicated to -him the Address agreed to on the 28th instant, to which the PRESIDENT OF -THE UNITED STATES was pleased to make the following reply: - - GENTLEMEN: This manifestation of your zeal for the honor - and the happiness of our country derives its full value - from the share which your deliberations have already had in - promoting both. - - I thank you for the favorable sentiments with which you - view the part I have borne in the arduous trust committed - to the Government of the United States; and desire you to - be assured that all my zeal will continue to second those - further efforts for the public good which are ensured by - the spirit in which you are entering on the present - session. - - G. WASHINGTON. - -The Senate returned to the Senate Chamber. - - -FRIDAY, November 4. - -STEPHEN R. BRADLEY, from the State of Vermont, appeared, produced his -credentials, and took his seat. - - -WEDNESDAY, November 9. - -OLIVER ELLSWORTH, from the State of Connecticut, attended, and took his -seat. - - -THURSDAY, November 10. - -JAMES GUNN, from the State of Georgia, attended, and took his seat. - - -FRIDAY, January 6. - -CHARLES CARROLL, from the State of Maryland, attended, and took his -seat. - - -MONDAY, January 9. - -RICHARD BASSETT, from the State of Delaware, attended, and took his -seat. - - -MONDAY, March 5. - -The following Message was received from the President of the United -States: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - Knowing the friendly interest you take in whatever may - promote the happiness and prosperity of the French nation, - it is with pleasure that I lay before you the translation - of a letter which I have received from his Most Christian - Majesty, announcing to the United States of America his - acceptance of the constitution presented to him in the name - of his nation. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _March 5, 1792_. - -[Translation.] - - _Very dear, Great Friends and Allies:_ - - We make it our duty to inform you that we have accepted the - constitution which has been presented to us in the name of - the nation, and according to which France will be - henceforth governed. - - We do not doubt that you take an interest in an event so - important to our kingdom, and to us; and that it is with - real pleasure we take this occasion to renew to you - assurances of the sincere friendship we bear you. - Whereupon, we pray God to have you, very dear, great - friends and allies, in his just and holy keeping. - - Written at Paris, the 19th of September, 1791. - - Your good friend and ally, - - LOUIS. - - MONTMORIN. - - THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA. - - -TUESDAY, March 13. - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday on the -Message from the President of the United States, transmitting a copy of -a letter from his Most Christian Majesty to the United States of -America. - -A motion was made and seconded to postpone this motion, in order to take -up the following: - - "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be - informed that the Senate have received with satisfaction - the official intelligence that the King of the French has - accepted the constitution presented to him by the National - Assembly, and are highly gratified by every event that - promotes the freedom and prosperity of the French nation - and the happiness and glory of their King." - -It passed in the negative; yeas 6, nays 21--as follows: - -YEAS.--Messrs. Bassett, Cabot, Ellsworth, King, Strong, and Wingate. - -NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Burr, Butler, Carroll, Dickinson, Few, Foster, -Gunn, Hawkins, Henry, Johnston, Izard, Langdon, Lee, Monroe, Morris, -Read, Robinson, Rutherford, Stanton, and Sherman. - -The original motion, being amended, was agreed to. Whereupon, it was - -_Resolved_, That the President be requested to make known to the King of -the French, that the Senate of the United States have received with the -highest satisfaction the official communication of his acceptance of the -constitution which, it is their earnest wish, may establish, on a solid -basis, the freedom and prosperity of the French nation, and the -happiness and glory of the Monarch presiding over it. - - -WEDNESDAY, March 14. - -_Ordered_, That the resolution of the Senate, on the Message of the -President of the United States, enclosing the letter from his Most -Christian Majesty, be signed by the Vice President, and laid before the -President of the United States, by the Secretary. - - -MONDAY, March 26. - -A motion was made by Mr. MONROE, seconded by Mr. LEE, as follows: - -"_Resolved_, That it be a standing rule, that the doors of the Senate -Chamber remain open whilst the Senate shall be sitting in their -Legislative capacity, except on such occasions as in their judgment may -require secrecy; and that this rule shall commence and be in force on -the first day of the next session of Congress;" and it passed in the -negative--yeas 8, nays 17, as follows: - -YEAS.--Messrs. Butler, Carroll, Foster, Hawkins, Johnston, King, Lee, -and Monroe. - -NAYS.--Messrs. Bassett, Bradley, Cabot, Dickinson, Ellsworth, Few, Gunn, -Henry, Izard, Langdon, Read, Robinson, Rutherford, Sherman, Stanton, -Strong, and Wingate. - - -WEDNESDAY, April 18. - -The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of -a President _pro tempore_ as the constitution provides, and the Hon. -RICHARD HENRY LEE was duly elected. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the President of the United -States, and lay before him an attested copy of this proceeding, and that -he notify the House of Representatives of the election of a President -_pro tempore_. - - -THURSDAY, April 19. - -_Resolved_, That the President _pro tempore_ of the Senate, as a member, -retain his right to vote upon all questions. - - -TUESDAY EVENING, May 8. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the -House of Representatives, having completed the business before them, are -about to adjourn. - -In conformity to the resolution of the 4th instant, the President _pro -tempore_ adjourned the Senate to the first Monday in November next, -being the time appointed by law for the next annual meeting of Congress. - - - - -SECOND CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION. - -PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES - -IN - -THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. - - -MONDAY, October 24, 1791. - -This being the day appointed by law for the meeting of the present -Congress, the following members appeared, produced their credentials, -and took their seats: - -_From New Hampshire_, NICHOLAS GILMAN, SAMUEL LIVERMORE, and JEREMIAH -SMITH. - -_From Massachusetts_, FISHER AMES, SHEARJASHUB BOURNE, ELBRIDGE GERRY, -BENJAMIN GOODHUE, GEORGE THATCHER, and ARTEMAS WARD. - -_From Rhode Island_, BENJAMIN BOURNE. - -_From Connecticut_, JAMES HILLHOUSE, JONATHAN STURGES, JONATHAN -TRUMBULL, JEREMIAH WADSWORTH, and AMASA LEARNED. - -_From New York_, JAMES GORDON, JOHN LAURANCE, PETER SYLVESTER, and -THOMAS TREDWELL. - -_From New Jersey_, ELIAS BOUDINOT. - -_From Pennsylvania_, THOMAS FITZSIMONS, DANIEL HEISTER, and FREDERICK -AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. - -_From Delaware_, JOHN VINING. - -_From Maryland_, JOSHUA SENEY, and SAMUEL STERRETT. - -_From Virginia_, JOHN BROWN, WILLIAM B. GILES, SAMUEL GRIFFIN, JAMES -MADISON, ANDREW MOORE, and ALEXANDER WHITE. - -_From North Carolina_, JOHN STEELE, and HUGH WILLIAMSON. - -_From South Carolina_, DANIEL HUGER, WILLIAM SMITH, and THOMAS TUDOR -TUCKER. - -_From Georgia_, FRANCIS WILLIS. - -A quorum of the members being present, the House proceeded to ballot for -Speaker, when it appeared that JONATHAN TRUMBULL, from Connecticut, was -elected. - -On being conducted to the chair, Mr. TRUMBULL addressed the House as -follows: - - GENTLEMEN: I find myself unable to express to you the full - sense I have of the distinguished honor you have done me in - the choice of your Speaker. - - The diffidence I feel in my abilities to discharge, with - propriety, the duties of the chair, is almost insuperable - in my own mind. But, encouraged by the known candor of this - honorable body, and depending, as I think I may confidently - do, on the kind assistance of each individual in it, I - shall enter on its duties, with full assurances to you, - gentlemen, that I shall endeavor to conduct myself with - that impartiality, integrity, and assiduity, which become - the conspicuous station in which you have been pleased to - place me. - -The House then proceeded to ballot for a Clerk, when there appeared a -unanimous vote for JOHN BECKLEY. - -The oath to support the constitution was then administered to the -members present, and the oath of office to the Speaker and Clerk. - -_Ordered_, That the Speaker appoint committees until the House shall -otherwise determine. - -A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that a -quorum of that body is assembled and ready to proceed to business; and -that the Senate have informed the President of the United States that -they are ready to receive any communications he may be pleased to make -to them. - -_Resolved_, That Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, Mr. LAURANCE, and Mr. -WHITE, be a committee on the part of this House, to act jointly with the -committee from the Senate, to wait on the President. - -_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and report Standing -Rules and Orders of proceeding for the House. Messrs. MUHLENBERG, -TUCKER, WILLIAMSON, AMES, and SMITH, of New Hampshire, were named. - -JOSEPH WHEATON was appointed Sergeant-at-Arms; and GIFFORD DALLEY, -Doorkeeper, and THOMAS CLAXTON, assistant Doorkeeper. - -_Resolved_, That two Chaplains, of different denominations, be appointed -to Congress for the present session, to interchange weekly. - -Mr. SMITH, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the President -of the United States, reported that the President would make a -communication to both Houses to-morrow at twelve o'clock, in the Senate -Chamber. - -A message from the Senate announced the agreement of that body to the -resolution of this House for the appointment of two Chaplains, and had -elected the Right Reverend Bishop WHITE, on their part. - - -TUESDAY, October 25. - -The following members appeared, presented their credentials, and took -their seats: ABRAHAM CLARK, JONATHAN DAYTON, and AARON KITCHELL, from -New Jersey; and ISRAEL JACOBS, from Pennsylvania. - -The House proceeded to ballot for a Chaplain, when a majority of the -votes were found in favor of the Rev. Mr. BLAIR. - -A message being received from the Senate, stating that they were ready -to receive the communication from the President of the United States, -the Speaker, attended by the members of the House, withdrew to the -Senate Chamber for the purpose of receiving the same. - -On the return of the members, the Speaker laid before the House a copy -of the Speech delivered by the President, (which will be found in the -proceedings of the Senate.) - -The Speech was committed to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow. - - -WEDNESDAY, October 26. - -_President's Speech._ - -The House then went into Committee of the Whole, on the President's -Speech, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair. - -The Speech being read, Mr. VINING moved a resolution, of which the -following is the purport: - - "_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee that - an Address should be presented to the President of the - United States by the House of Representatives, in answer to - his Speech, to congratulate him on the prosperous situation - of the United States, expressive of the approbation of the - House of the wise and prudent measures he has pursued - during their recess, in the execution of the duties - committed to his charge: promising speedy attention to the - important and momentous objects recommended to their - consideration, and expressing their approbation of the - humane and effectual steps taken, under his direction, for - the defence of the Western frontiers." - -This resolution was objected to by Messrs. LAURANCE, SEDGWICK, SMITH, -(of South Carolina,) and LIVERMORE, upon the principle, that it -expressed the sense of the House upon points which required further -information and investigation before the House could, with propriety, -determine. It was difficult to say, before proper documents were laid -before the House, whether the measures adopted for the defence of the -Western frontiers were the most prudent that could be adopted. It was -impossible positively to assert, that the President, in the execution of -the duties assigned him in carrying into effect the excise act, had done -all for the best. Every member that spoke agreed in expressing his -individual opinion, that no doubt the President had acted with his -wonted prudence and wisdom in the execution of the trusts reposed in -him; but also agreed that it was improper, indeed, it was no compliment -paid to the President, to approve, before a formal examination. - -In answer to these objections it was observed, that so far as -circumstances had been made known to the members, relative to the steps -taken by the President during the recess of the Federal Legislature, so -far they claimed the approbation of the House; and that the opinion of -the House was only meant to be given as far as they were informed. It -was urged, that the answer of the House should be a candid expression of -their feelings; feelings which the prosperous situation of the country -undoubtedly called forth, and which the issue of the measures adopted -could not fail to excite. - -Several modifications were proposed to the resolution, which was finally -agreed to, as follows: - - "_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee that - a respectful Address ought to be presented by the House of - Representatives to the President of the United States, in - answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress at the - commencement of this session, containing assurances that - this House will take into consideration the various and - important matters recommended to their attention." - -Mr. MADISON, Mr. LAURANCE, and Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina,) were -appointed a committee to prepare an Address, pursuant to the resolution. - - -THURSDAY, October 27. - -Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed, reported an Address to the -President of the United States, in answer to his Speech to both Houses -of Congress; which was read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee -of the whole House immediately. - -_Address to the President._ - -The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the whole -House on the said Address; and, after some time spent therein, Mr. -MUHLENBERG reported that the committee had had the said Address under -consideration, and made no amendment thereto. Whereupon, it was - -_Resolved, unanimously_, That this House doth agree to the said Address, -in the words following: - - SIR: In receiving your Address, at the opening of the - present session, the House of Representatives have taken an - ample share in the feelings inspired by the actual - prosperity and flattering prospects of our country; and - whilst, with becoming gratitude to Heaven, we ascribe this - happiness to the true source from which it flows, we behold - with an animating pleasure the degree in which the - Constitution and laws of the United States have been - instrumental in dispensing it. - - It yields us particular satisfaction to learn the success - with which the different important measures of the - Government have proceeded; as well those specially provided - for the last session, as those of preceding date. The - safety of our Western frontier, in which the lives and - repose of so many of our fellow-citizens are involved, - being peculiarly interesting, your communications on that - subject are proportionally grateful to us. The gallantry - and good conduct of the militia, whose services were called - for, is an honorable confirmation of the efficacy of that - precious resource of a free State. And we anxiously wish - that the consequences of their successful enterprises, and - of the other proceedings to which you have referred, may - leave the United States free to pursue the most benevolent - policy towards the unhappy and deluded race of people in - our neighborhood. - - The amount of the population of the United States, - determined by the returns of the census, is a source of the - most pleasing reflections, whether it be viewed in relation - to our national safety and respectability, or as a proof of - that felicity in the situation of our country, which favors - so unexampled a rapidity in its growth. Nor ought any to be - insensible to the additional motive suggested by this - important fact to perpetuate the free Government - established with a wise administration of it, to a portion - of the earth which promises such an increase of the number - which is to enjoy those blessings within the limits of the - United States. - - We shall proceed with all the respect due to your patriotic - recommendations, and with a deep sense of the trust - committed to us by our fellow-citizens, to take into - consideration the various and important matters falling - within the present session; and, in discussing and deciding - each, we shall feel every disposition, whilst we are - pursuing the public welfare, which must be the supreme - object with all our constituents, to accommodate, as far as - possible, the means of attaining it to the sentiments and - wishes of every part of them. - -Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of -the United States, to know when and where it will be convenient for him -to receive the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both -Houses of Congress, reported that the committee had waited on the -President, who signified to them that it would be convenient to him to -receive the said Address at twelve o'clock to-morrow, at his own house. - - -FRIDAY, October 28. - -The SPEAKER, attended by the House, then withdrew to the house of the -President of the United States, and there presented to him the Address -of this House, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; to -which the President made the following reply: - - _Gentlemen:_ - - The pleasure I derive from an assurance of your attention - to the objects I have recommended to you is doubled by your - concurrence in the testimony I have borne to the prosperous - condition of our public affairs. - - Relying on the sanctions of your enlightened judgment, and - on your patriotic aid, I shall be the more encouraged in - all my endeavors for the public weal, and particularly in - those which may be required on my part for executing the - salutary measures I anticipate from your present - deliberations. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - -MONDAY, October 31. - -Several other members, to wit: from Vermont, NATHANIEL NILES and ISRAEL -SMITH; from Maryland, UPTON SHERIDINE; from North Carolina, WILLIAM -BARRY GROVE; and from South Carolina, ROBERT BARNWELL; appeared, -produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House. - - -TUESDAY, November 1. - -ANTHONY WAYNE, member from Georgia, and JOSIAH PARKER, from Virginia, -took their seats this day. - - -THURSDAY, November 3. - -Two other members, to wit, RICHARD BLAND LEE and JOHN PAGE, from -Virginia, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in -the House. - - -FRIDAY, November 4. - -Another member, to wit, EGBERT BENSON, from New York, appeared, produced -his credentials, and took his seat in the House. - - -MONDAY, November 7. - -Several other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, WILLIAM FINDLAY; from -North Carolina, JOHN BAPTIST ASHE; and from Georgia, ABRAHAM BALDWIN; -appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House. - - -TUESDAY, November 8. - -Another member, to wit, ANDREW GREGG, from Pennsylvania, appeared, -produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House. - -_John Torrey._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -Report of the Secretary of War on the petition of John Torrey, -administrator of Major Joseph Torrey, deceased. - -Mr. AMES objected to the motion for accepting the Report of the -Secretary of War. He said, it must be apparent that he was placed by -accident in a relation to the subject in debate, which he should not -have adopted of choice. With very little knowledge of the parties and -their connections, and the interests that would be involved by the -decision, he seemed to be considered as standing sponsor for the -petitioner. He might justify this active support of the petition, by -assigning motives which were common to other gentlemen; but as they have -continued silent, I will assign a reason for speaking, which is peculiar -to myself. Nothing excites a person to a more fervid defence of his -opinions, than the supposed discovery that they are misunderstood, and -the force of the reasons on which he had formed them unduly estimated. - -Congress promised half-pay to the officers who should continue in -service _to the end of the war_. This was afterwards made a commutation -for half-pay. Major Torrey continued in service till September, 1783, -when he died. The question is, did he continue in service to the end of -the war? The provisional articles of peace were signed on the 30th -November, 1782; but they were to remain without force till terms of -peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France. This took -place on the 30th January, 1783, and the ratifications were exchanged on -the 3d February, 1783, at Paris. The provisional treaty between Great -Britain and America was then _a treaty of peace_, and according to the -words of that treaty was _concluded_. Accordingly, on the 11th April, -1783, Congress by a proclamation made known those facts, and the -stipulations made, in regard to the periods when hostilities should -cease, by the contracting parties to the treaty. Hostilities did cease, -and before the end of April, 1783, all America was in perfect peace. The -late hostile nations shook hands, our vessels sailed in safety, and by -sea and land reconciliation succeeded to hostility. - -But did all this put an end to the war? The children in the street would -answer this question: they would say, it is peace when it is not war. Of -all facts, the most notorious seems to be the state of war; and it is -the fact that the war was at an end, (and not any after resolve of -Congress,) that the commutation of Major Torrey was made to hinge upon. -When the meaning of a bargain is disputed, it is usual to search out the -intention of the contracting parties when it was made. Supposing, -instead of interpreting a resolve of Congress, any twelve of this body -had to try a case between two private persons; suppose that a man had -given his note of hand for a sum to be paid at the _end of the war_. -Would twelve of this House, or would any jury in the country say that -the war continued longer than hostilities? In private life, a man would -think it touched his character to refuse paying his note in such case. -Surely a government ought to perform its promise with as much delicacy -and exactness. Congress did not promise the half-pay, and afterward the -commutation, on the condition that a man should serve till they should -think proper to say the war was at an end. He depended on the stubborn -_fact_ that it did end, which no resolution of Congress could change; -and not on the refining opinion when the officers might safely be -discharged--for that we see might be differently formed, according to -the different views of policy and safety at the time. An officer having -this promise of Congress, has a right to this commutation on the -cessation of hostilities, in pursuance of the treaty. If this is -disputed, the meaning of the words, "_the end of the war_," should be -decided as it was understood at the time of the promise. Will any one -believe that the 3d November, 1783, was the term, after the state of war -and all the treaties which put an end to it, had been long passed? If -any doubt still remains, writers on the law of nations should be -consulted. For the officer may justly claim an execution of the promise -according to law; that is the umpire between Government and the people. -On appealing to the law of nations, we find that war is defined to be -"the state in which a nation prosecutes its right by force." "Peace is -opposed to the state of war--an accommodation is proposed and conditions -agreed on, and thus peace puts an end to war." "When the powers at war -agree to lay down their arms, the agreement is the treaty of peace." -"The general and necessary effects of peace, are the reconciliation of -enemies and the cessation of hostilities; it restores the two nations to -their natural state." Would any jury in this country say, that the -matter of fact and the principles of law were not in favor of the -petition? Apply these maxims of law to the case. The provisional -articles of November, 1782, were of themselves nothing, it is true, but -they were to constitute the treaty of peace, whenever Great Britain and -France had agreed on the terms of peace. As these two powers did agree -on the 30th January, and ratified the terms on the 3d February, 1783, -_then_ the provisional articles, to use the very words of the preamble, -did _constitute the treaty of peace_; it was _then_ a _concluded_ thing; -and peace in fact took place in the several parts of the world on the -appointed days. - -It has been said, that the preliminaries were no more than a suspension -of arms--that the state of war still continues, until a _definitive_ -treaty. To this it is answered, that preliminaries bind the national -faith; if violated, the perjured faithless nation would kindle a new -war. By the law of nations there is not such a distinction as that which -is alleged, between preliminary and definitive treaties. Let the -authorities for such a distinction be produced by those who make it. But -they do not exist--a truce does not put an end to a war--a truce is, -however, a suspension of war for a specified term. At the end of this -term, the war begins again, of course, without any fresh declaration. -But a suspension of hostilities for an indefinite period, is not a -truce, but a peace; especially if it is added, that it is agreed upon by -the belligerent nations in consequence of a settlement of their -disputes, and if it happens in fact that the war is not revived. Those -who make so much of a definitive treaty, and so light of preliminaries, -should consider that, on their own system, the former is a kind of -defeasance which annuls the latter. But when the definitive treaty is -signed, the preliminaries, which before were liable to be annulled, now -become of force, and the treaty, now become indefeasible, takes its date -from the preliminaries. Though this mode of reasoning has not much -weight on my mind, it ought to have some with those who have set up the -distinction which it is adduced to overthrow. - -These are the reasons on which I have formed my opinion that the war -ended in fact in April, 1783, when hostilities ceased by mutual -agreement of the powers at war. My opinion is supported by authority -much more reputable than any I can give to it. The law courts in this -country have decided it judicially; cases of captured vessels, and the -question of interest on British debts, have produced decisions in every -State of the Union, unless I am misinformed, that the war ended in March -or April, 1783. The courts in England, and in every country where the -war spread, on trials of property, have made similar decisions. Major -Torrey died in September, 1783; shall this body decide against the -settled rule of all the law courts? - -It remains to remove some objections: - -It is alleged, that Congress have by various resolves fixed the period -of the war, and have declared that the 3d November, 1783, is the term. -If they had declared that it should be computed from the end of the -world, it would not alter the truth of the fact. _After_ declarations -ought not to be received to change their own promises. But a -declaration, or a dozen of them, made for another purpose, and not to -declare the meaning of the contract, cannot on any principle be received -to interpret it. It is not necessary, however, to contend against those -resolves of Congress. They are irreconcilable with the former engagement -to Major Torrey. In undertaking to reconcile them, I feel that I impose -a task on myself, which is made heavy by the prepossessions of many of -my friends; I believe the minds of gentlemen are perfectly fair, and -well-disposed to doing the petitioner justice. But I hope I shall not be -thought to intend any offence, when I remark that certain ideas, such as -that this claim is cut off by resolves of Congress, and that on allowing -it, confusion would take place in the business of the public offices, -were started with the discussion, and they have remained so woven into -the texture of the debate, that I think it hard to unravel them. It was -soon manifested that there was a general disposition to vote against the -petition. This opportunity for debate seems to have been accorded as of -grace, rather than as a means of removing any existing doubts of their -own. Having adopted these opinions, this is rather a form of refusal -than a mode of inquiring; and it seems to have been chosen with every -circumstance of decency, and with all possible steadfastness of purpose. -Yet I will proceed to state, that the point whether the war was at an -end when hostilities ended in April, 1783, being already considered -fully, we are to look for other reasons than such as relate to the -commutation, to explain the resolves of Congress which continued the -service of the officers beyond the end of the war, and as late as -November, 1783. A mistake seems to have crept in here. It seems to be -supposed that the officers were engaged to serve to the end of the war, -just long enough to secure their commutation. But the commutation -depended on one thing--the term of their service on another. The former -was their right at the end of the war; but they were to remain in -service till dismissed, unless they should think fit sooner to resign. -They held their commissions during the pleasure of Congress. Though -when the war ended they had a right to the commutation, they had no -right to say their service was at an end. They did not choose to resign: -Congress, for wise reasons, did not choose to dismiss them. A foreign -army was still in New York. They were sent home on furlough, but drawing -pay, and liable to be called into the field. Congress, in their -resolves, did not say that it was not peace, but in effect that it was -unsafe to disarm. Gentlemen are not well agreed among themselves as to -the end of the war. Some fix it at the definitive treaty of September 3, -1783; others at November 3. Their conclusions agree as illy with their -principles; for if the definitive treaty put an end to the war, how can -the same gentlemen say that the war was kept alive, on the journals of -Congress, till November, 1783? Here, then, were Peace and War subsisting -quietly together during two months. - -The fears of making confusion by opening a door to many applications, -seem to be groundless. A man must have died between the end of -hostilities and November, 1783, to place a claim on the like footing. -The living have had their commutations; they cannot come: and no other -officer died in that period, as far as I can learn. I have inquired, and -cannot find at the office of the Secretary of War any precedent which -militates with this claim, or any reason to suppose that any similar one -will be offered. The case is a new one; it stands alone, and probably -ever will, and it must be decided on its own merits. Believing the fact -to be indisputable that Major Torrey served to the end of the war, -confiding in the principles of the law of nations, and the settled -decisions of the Judicial Courts, I have endeavored to explain my ideas -with perspicuity, and to impress them with force. I have said more than -questions touching an individual will often be found to merit; but when -public principles are construed to the prejudice of private rights, the -debate cannot be treated too seriously. - -Mr. BOUDINOT said, he differed in opinion from the gentleman in his -construction of the business. He did not coincide in the idea that the -decision of the present question should be on a strictly judicial -principle. The petition is founded on certain resolutions and laws of -Congress; and as there are certain established rules which have been -observed in settling with every other officer similarly circumstanced, -Congress cannot now with propriety break through those rules; to these -they ought to adhere, till by the decision of some judicial court it -shall appear that they are contrary to the rules of justice. [Here Mr. -AMES requested Mr. BOUDINOT to point out the rules to which he -referred.] Mr. B. referred to the report now under consideration, which -was founded on a resolution of Congress, that the time for which the -army was engaged should expire in November, 1783. This has been made a -rule in all the settlements with the officers of the army. - -The terms of the contract, between the officers and the United States, -depended, he said, on the decision of the sovereign power; that was -authorized alone to determine when the war should cease. That power was -vested in the then existing Congress, who, although they entered into -provisional articles in November, 1783, did not, however, think proper -immediately to disband their armies or put an end to the war, as it was -yet uncertain whether those provisional articles would be ratified by -Great Britain, or a treaty of peace concluded between Great Britain and -France; a circumstance which was necessary before those articles could -be definitively binding. It was only when the definitive treaty was -made, that Congress determined the period of the war. The army, when -finally disbanded and paid up to that day, acknowledged, by accepting -their pay, that it was then only the war ended; and, as far as was in -their power, assented to the principle which he maintained, that the -provisional articles had not before put an end to the war. Suppose that, -on the arrival of the definitive treaty, Congress had not agreed to the -terms, would the war have then been considered as at an end? Would not -Congress have been in the same situation as before the signing of the -provisional articles? It was necessary that Congress should, by a -definitive act, determine when the war ceased. Congress had passed such -an act; and the House at present cannot with propriety enter into a -resolution to alter the period. The argument of inconvenience ought also -to have some weight with the House; for if any alteration were now to be -made in the law, it must have a retrospect to all the widows and -children of deceased officers, who have received half pay for years -past. Besides, many officers who have not hitherto considered themselves -as entitled to half pay, would, in consequence of such an alteration, -have a right to apply for it. - -Mr. LAURANCE said, he doubted not the gentleman who supported the -petition was fully satisfied as to the justice of the claim which he -advocated with so much ardor; he begged leave to state his opinion, -however, on the subject, in which he should differ from that gentleman. - -The contract with the officers of the late army was, that those should -be entitled to certain benefits who served to the end of the war. But -Major Torrey was not thus circumstanced, as he died previous to the -period when the war ceased, and left neither widow nor orphan to receive -the benefit of the provisions allowed by law; his case is not -contemplated by any existing resolution of Congress. - -It is well known that hostilities ceased at the time of publishing the -provisional articles which formed the basis for the treaty of peace; but -can any man say that every soldier had a right on that event to demand a -discharge? Surely not. The provisional articles had the peace in -contemplation, but the army was not to be discharged till the articles -of the definitive treaty were ratified by the belligerent powers. The -army of the United States was, therefore, only furloughed, and Congress -retained the power of recalling them into service; and had the officers -and soldiers been recalled from their furloughs to take the field, it -would have been a continuance of the same war; but if the definitive -treaty had been signed, and hostilities had commenced the very next day, -it would have been a new war, and would have been prosecuted on entirely -new principles. The second article of the provisional treaty looks -forward to a _future_ period for a conclusion of the war; and he -inferred, that the definitive articles being ratified, and the -ratifications exchanged, alone constituted a termination of the war. Mr. -L. added some observations on the legal ideas of Mr. Ames, in which he -also differed from that gentleman; and concluded by expressing his -approbation of the Report of the Secretary of War. - -Mr. AMES's remarks were further combated by Mr. WILLIAMSON, Mr. DAYTON, -Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. WADSWORTH, Mr. CLARK, and Mr. WHITE. - -Mr. WAYNE was opposed to the report, and stated certain particulars to -show that the army was not furloughed by Congress because it was -apprehended there would be any further demand for their services, but -because it was inconvenient to give them an absolute discharge at that -period. - -The motion for accepting the Secretary's Report was carried by a large -majority. - - -WEDNESDAY, November 9. - -Two other members, to wit: from Maryland, WILLIAM VANS MURRAY; and from -South Carolina, THOMAS SUMTER; appeared, produced their credentials, and -took their seats in the House. - -The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Governor of -Maryland, enclosing a letter to him from WILLIAM PINKNEY, a member -returned to serve in this House for the said State, containing his -resignation of that appointment; also a return of JOHN FRANCIS MERCER, -elected a member to serve in this House, in the room of the said WILLIAM -PINKNEY: which were read, and ordered to be referred to the standing -Committee of Elections. - - -THURSDAY, November 10. - -_The Census._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the Schedule of the Enumeration of the Inhabitants of the United States. - -Mr. LAURANCE had previously moved, that until the next enumeration the -number of Representatives should be one for every thirty thousand -persons. - -Mr. DAYTON moved to strike out "thirty," before "thousand." This -amendment was under consideration. - -Mr. GERRY observed, that in all the decisions of the Legislature, we -ought to follow as far as possible the opinion of the great body of the -people. If this opinion should be found to be against the ratio of -thirty thousand, the amendment ought to be adopted; but if we refer to -the amendments, proposed by the Conventions to the constitution, we -shall find that five States are in favor of one Representative to every -thirty thousand persons, till the number should amount to two hundred. -None of the propositions now moved as amendments to the motion of the -gentleman from New York, amount to that number. Several others of the -Conventions were of opinion that the representation was too small to -secure the liberties of this country. This Government, said he, is a -Government of representation; the people may control their -Representatives, but their influence is small in respect to the Senate -and the Executive, and still less over the officers of Government. On -what then do the people depend for checking encroachments, or preventing -abuses? On their Representatives? If these should be too few, or if they -should fail them, they never can redress their grievances without having -recourse to violence. If the number is small, a majority may be the more -easily corrupted. On the other hand, too large a number will be attended -with difficulties; a medium then is most eligible. An adequate number is -absolutely necessary; and to show that one to thirty thousand would not -produce more than an adequate number, he referred to the ratio of -representation in England and France, in which there was a greater -proportion of Representatives than in the Legislature of the United -States. - -He then adverted to the objection arising from the additional expense; -but, he observed, after Congress shall have passed a few more of the -most important acts, it is not probable that the public business will in -future require that the sessions should be for more than four months -annually; this would reduce the expense greatly, in the first instance; -and, agreeably to a calculation, an addition of forty-seven members to -the present number, would make the aggregate expense but about -one-eighteenth part more than at present, supposing the sessions to be -four months long. But he considered the objection on account of the -expense as merely speculative. - -Although Congress is not positively bound by the constitution to give -one member for every thirty thousand inhabitants, yet he would ask, -whether the citizens of the United States did not expect that this ratio -would be adopted? and whether they would not consider it as an abuse of -power, if Congress, instead of one to thirty thousand, should settle the -representation at one to forty thousand? Eight States have already -adopted the first article of the proposed amendments to the -constitution: and if the House should either settle the number of the -Representative body, as it now stands, or reduce it, or establish it at -one hundred, perhaps they might, before the end of the session, be -obliged to repeal their act--as they would be bound by the amendment, -as soon as it is ratified by a sufficient number of States. If gentlemen -thought it probable that the proposed amendment would be ratified by the -several States, they ought already to consider it as a rule for their -conduct, and be restrained by it, from giving less than one -Representative for thirty thousand inhabitants. After the representation -amounts to one hundred, Congress will, no doubt, have a right to fix it -there, until it is increased by the ratio of one to forty thousand: but -that is a power which, he presumed, Congress will not exercise; but that -they then will establish some ratio, by which the increase of -representation shall keep pace with the increase of population, until -the House consists of two hundred members. - -Mr. BOUDINOT was convinced of the propriety of striking out the word -"thirty." The House ought to consider what would be an adequate number -for doing the business of the Union; and that number ought not to be -exceeded, except to answer some very valuable purpose. Business would -proceed with difficulty, if the representation was so numerous as it -would become by the ratio of one to thirty thousand. The present -representation of the United States is in a ratio very different from -that of one to thirty thousand; and yet he thought it fully adequate. -From a rough calculation, the ratio of thirty thousand would produce one -hundred and thirteen members; thirty-five thousand would give -ninety-seven; and forty thousand would produce eighty-one. If the number -once settled was to rest there, he would not be over anxious to oppose -the increase; but if gentlemen would take into view the increase -consequent on the next enumeration, they would find that the number will -by far exceed the due bounds. - -He thought the people of the United States would be duly represented, -and to their entire satisfaction, if the ratio was set higher than -thirty thousand; nor could he imagine that such an exact proportion, -between the Representatives and the represented, was at all requisite to -secure their liberties, or to do the necessary business of Government. -This indeed might be the case, if the power vested in Congress was -proportionate to their number; but, since the House would possess the -same powers, whether it consisted of a greater or a smaller number, he -thought the people equally secure in either case. The ratio of -thirty-five thousand, which would produce ninety-seven members, would, -in his opinion, be a very proper one. If, however, the people should -think otherwise, they had it in their power to correct the mistake, by -ratifying the proposed amendment. Their not having as yet ratified it, -was to him an argument that they thought the ratio too low; or, at -least, that they considered the question as doubtful. Some of the -States, he observed, have postponed the consideration of the amendment; -and eight only have as yet agreed to it. On the whole, the House might -safely adopt the ratio of one to thirty-five thousand; for that the -increasing population of the United States would ever supply a -representation sufficiently numerous to answer every good purpose. - -Mr. CLARK observed, that his objection was not merely on account of the -pay of the members, but an increase in the representation would bring an -additional expense on the people, by increasing the number of public -officers; as almost every man would wish to see his friend provided for. -The liberties of America could be in no danger from the present ratio of -representation. The doors of the House are open, and the people know -what their Representatives are doing. - -Mr. STEELE was in favor of the motion for striking out _thirty_. In -discussing the important subject before the committee, he observed that -there were two inquiries to be attended to: What is the proper number to -constitute a Representative body for the United States, and what ratio -will leave the fewest fractions in the respective States? One member to -thirty thousand, he conceived, would give too numerous a representation. -According to the present number of inhabitants, it will almost double -the present number; it will divide and diminish the responsibility, make -the House too unwieldy, retard public business, and increase the public -expenses unnecessarily. An adequate representation, he thought, would be -comprised within a much smaller number. - -Gentlemen have called our attention to the House of Commons of Great -Britain, and the National Assembly of France; but God forbid that we -should draw our precedents from such examples as may be cited from -European representation. - -He was opposed to thirty thousand as the ratio: it would, in fractions, -throughout the United States, leave above three hundred and sixty-nine -thousand citizens unrepresented. Thirty-five thousand he thought the -most eligible number, as it would leave the fewest fractions. - -Mr. LAURANCE agreed that an adequate number was the great object to be -attended to; but he contended that the original motion would give this -number more completely than a larger ratio: and it ought to be -considered, that, before the next enumeration, it will not be probably -more than one to fifty thousand. As to the increase of expense, he -observed that the great objects being accomplished, the future sessions -will be short; besides which, the compensation of the members may be -diminished. But he considered a necessary increase in the expense to be -fully counterbalanced by affording greater security to the liberties of -the people. The firmness of a government depends on a strong Executive; -but this Executive should be founded on a broad bottom; and the broader -the basis, the more secure is the public freedom under a vigorous -Executive. - -The existence of the Union may depend on the fullness of the -representation. The inequality in the proportional increase of the -number of inhabitants in different States, ought also to be taken into -consideration; for it is very probable that in a short time, while some -of the smaller States had a Representative for every thirty thousand, -others would not have one to forty thousand. He was governed by general -principles, and not by any calculations of fractional numbers: the -constitution contemplates the ratio he had proposed, and therefore he -hoped the motion for striking out would not obtain. - -Mr. GOODHUE observed, that the situation and circumstances of the -Government of the United States are so different from those of France or -Great Britain, that no parallel could be drawn respecting them. Nor is -there an absolute similarity between this Government and those of the -State Governments. The objects of legislation which come under the -cognizance of Congress, are but few compared with those which engage the -British House of Commons and the National Assembly of France. A much -larger representation for them, and in our State Legislatures, is -therefore more proper, than is necessary for us in the General -Government. He doubted the opinion that a large representation was less -liable to corruption than a small one: some facts appear to confirm the -former sentiment. He did not consider the expense as a material -objection, if an increase of the number be necessary to doing more ample -justice, or for the greater security of the liberties of the people; -but, as he thought this was by no means the case, he was in favor of -striking out "thirty," in order to insert a larger number. - -Mr. BARNWELL agreed with the gentleman last up. He should vote for -striking out "thirty," in order to substitute the largest number that -had been mentioned. Mr. B. entered into an abstract and philosophical -discussion of the principle of representation in Government. The leading -sentiment was, that a large proportion of Representatives is not -necessary to obtain the best objects of legislation, in expressing the -will of the people, or to secure the liberties of the constituent body. -The great point, he observed, was, to combine the greatest portion of -honesty with a due degree of activity. That number which would comprise -a due proportion of these, would be competent to all the purposes of -legislation, whether the number for which it legislates is ten thousand, -or five hundred thousand. On this principle, he was decidedly against a -large number, and in favor of a small one. Adverting to the British -House of Commons and the National Assembly of France, with respect to -the former, he said, their corruption is, in a great degree, owing to -their numbers: as to the latter, he observed, that the National Assembly -had acted, in his opinion, politically and wisely. They set out with a -large representation, in conformity to the sentiments of the people at -the moment; but, on experience, finding the number too great, they have -reduced it from twelve hundred to about two hundred and fifty. He -believed that the general sense of the people was against a large -representation in Congress; the inconveniences experienced from numerous -bodies in the State Legislatures have led several of the States to -lessen the number. He instanced Georgia, South Carolina, and -Pennsylvania. - -Mr. BALDWIN was opposed to the motion. One Representative for thirty -thousand appeared to him by no means a great representation. The opinion -that, of late, had been so often advanced from the press, and in public -discussion, for reducing the Representative branch in Government to a -small number, he held to be full of dangerous error. He was sensible -that the terms great and small were so merely relative in their -signification, that it was difficult precisely to understand each other -in the use of them. Perhaps they may most properly, both of them, be -considered as extremes. No doubt representation, which of late seems to -be used as the character of Republican Government, is a great -improvement upon Democracy, or legislation by the whole body of the -people. He could conceive that a representation might be so large as to -partake of the evils of assembling the whole body of the people; but it -was a very improbable and not a dangerous extreme: the other extreme was -full of danger. These observations acquire much force, when applied -particularly to the Governments of this country: enfeeble the -representative part of them, and you sap the very principles of life. -They stand on a different basis from the Governments which have gone -before them, and may justly be said to be new experiments in government; -time, as yet, has scarcely given room to judge of the probable issue; -but this we may pronounce with much certainty--Let the principles of -representation languish, and they have no chance of success. - -It had not been found practicable to ground representation in the -Federal Constitution upon any other principle than that of numbers; but -extent of territory is unquestionably one of the natural principles on -which it rests, and should if possible be regarded. One for thirty-four -or thirty-five thousand may be deemed a proper representation in the -Kingdom of France, or of Great Britain. The four millions which compose -the United States, compactly settled where there was great sameness in -the country, and pretty equally distant from a common centre, would be -properly represented by a smaller number than in their present sparse -settlement. But still further: the settlement of the United States is a -fillet stretched along the sea-coast for seventeen hundred miles, -comprehending as great a variety of climate and interests as one of the -other quarters of the globe. It is difficult to conceive of a situation -which calls for a greater extension of the principle of representation. - -It has been said, that one for thirty thousand will make too large and -unwieldy a body. He was sensible that was a point that did not admit of -being determined by any conclusive reasoning; it was a mere matter of -opinion; sound judgment only is to be used, time and experience will -come on and confirm or correct the opinion. In such a case, it is wise -to inquire how this has been judged of by others who have had a -Representative body. In France, one thousand two hundred was not thought -too great a representation in forming their National Assembly; and the -number established by their new constitution for their stated -Legislature was not two hundred and fifty, as the member last up had -stated, but, if he had not been misinformed by the publications in this -country, it was nearly seven hundred and fifty. - -In the Kingdom of Great Britain, five hundred is not thought too great a -representation: and can one hundred and thirteen, which is the greatest -number contended for, be considered in this country as a huge and -impracticable mass of representation? - -It had ever appeared to him to be among the strongest marks of our youth -and inexperience, that we grow wise too suddenly. He was afraid this -instantaneous wisdom which sprung up so at once, and set at nought, or -removed to the extreme of absurdity and folly, the deliberate and tried -opinions of the most profound and enlightened among men, in -circumstances peculiarly favorable to honest decision, will itself be -left by time on that extreme. - -The Federal Government, it must be admitted, is in fact pretty highly -seasoned with prerogative; practice has already evinced the necessity, -in many instances, of increasing it, by devolving much of the -Legislative power upon the Executive Department, arising from the -difficulty of making particular provisions and details in our laws, and -accommodating them to the various interests of so extensive a country. - -The other branch of the Legislature has many traits of a perpetual--at -least of a very solid constituent part of the Government. He did not -mention these as imperfections in the Government; they are perfections, -if the other parts can be in due proportion: but it is surely a sound -reason against taking positive measures at this time to diminish the -Representative branch. For his own part, he was not well satisfied as to -the intention. If there is any reason to apprehend that the Government -will depart from the point on which it was first placed, he could -scarcely suppose that any one could be honestly alarmed with the fear -that the departure would be towards Democracy. He concluded, by -expressing his hopes that the representation to the next Congress would -be fixed at one for thirty thousand, as it had hitherto been, and that -the motion for striking out would not prevail. - - -FRIDAY, November 11. - -JOHN W. KITTERA, from Pennsylvania, appeared, produced his credentials, -and took his seat in the House to-day. - - -MONDAY, November 14. - -A petition of James Jackson, of the State of Georgia, was presented to -the House and read, complaining of the undue election and return of -ANTHONY WAYNE, one of the members returned to serve in this House for -the said State. - - -_Ratio of Representation._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the Schedule of the Enumeration of the Inhabitants of the United States. - -Mr. FINDLAY declared himself to be in favor of one Representative for -every thirty thousand persons. The opinion of the people should be the -guide of the committee; that opinion, he conceived, to be in favor of -the ratio he had mentioned. - -The representation ought as nearly as possible to express not only the -will, but to participate in the wishes and interests of the people. A -large representation embraces these interests more fully, and is more -competent to giving and receiving information. The objects of -legislation are such as come home to the doors, to the feelings of every -man; the Government ought therefore to secure the confidence of the -people by a large representation. The expense he considered as trifling -compared to the benefits--and the people expect and are willing to pay -for being well governed, and having their liberties secured. An -increased representation is an additional security against corruption. -As to delays occasioned by a numerous body, he observed that the -Representatives were chosen to deliberate and to mature every subject -before decision; he instanced the advantages derived from the numerous -representations in France and in Ireland; the former had framed a -constitution in two years for twenty-six millions of citizens, and -provided for securing the liberties of their country--and the latter had -proved a successful barrier against the encroachments of the arbitrary -power of England. He concluded, by asserting that the voice of the -people was in favor of the amendment proposed to the constitution, which -would give one Representative to every thirty thousand persons. - -Mr. GILES said this subject had struck him in two points of view: -whether Congress are not precluded from exercising any discretion on the -subject? and whether, if they are not, it is expedient for them to -exercise this discretion at this time? The ratio of representation is a -constitutional, and not a Legislative act. He referred to the -constitution, in which it is said that there shall be one Representative -to every State; and, secondly, that until the enumeration, the number -should be as therein appointed to each State. After the enumeration, the -number is mentioned below which it shall not be placed; but there is a -negative power to increase the ratio, and from this negative power, a -positive discretionary power is inferred. But, he observed that Congress -had precluded itself from a right to exercise this discretionary power, -by sending out to the several State Legislatures an amendment on this -very subject. This amendment he considered in a serious point of view; -and had this idea been attended to at the commencement of the -discussion, he conceived that it would have prevented the opinion from -being brought forward whether it was expedient that any change in the -ratio of the representation should take place. The idea of one to thirty -thousand, he considered as fully settled in the minds of the people; and -a change on the part of the Government would indicate a changeable -disposition, and a mutability of counsels, which is but another name for -weakness. - -Mr. G. then took a view of the objects of legislation to the State -Assemblies, and of those of the General Government. In the former, above -one thousand persons are employed, though their attention is confined to -their internal police. Those of the General Government, on the other -hand, are on the great objects of the whole finance of the Union, a sum -of more than eighty millions of dollars, &c., &c. - -It is said that we shall want abilities, but I should be sorry if a -representation of ten times the present number of this House should -comprise the abilities of a single State. - -He assigned different causes than numbers, for the corruption in the -British House of Commons; among these were the frequent mortgages of the -funds, and the immense appropriations at the disposal of the Executive, -the mode of their elections, &c. A large number is not so easily -corrupted as a small body. - -An inequality of circumstances, he then observed, produces revolutions -in Government, from Democracy to Aristocracy and Monarchy. Great wealth -produces a desire of distinctions, rank, and titles. The revolutions in -property in this country have created a prodigious inequality of -circumstances. Government has contributed to this inequality; the Bank -of the United States is a most important machine in promoting the -objects of this moneyed interest. This bank will be the most powerful -engine to corrupt this House. Some of the members are directors of this -institution; and it will only be by increasing the representation that -an adequate barrier can be opposed to this moneyed interest. He next -adverted to certain ideas which he said had been disseminated through -the United States; and here he took occasion to observe, that the -Legislature ought to express some public disapprobation of these -opinions. The strong Executive of this Government ought to be balanced -by a full representation in this House. He hoped the motion to strike -out thirty thousand would not obtain. - -Mr. BOUDINOT closed the debate of this day by a few remarks, reinforcing -his former observations in favor of an increased ratio. - - -TUESDAY, November 15. - -_Ratio of Representation._ - -The House again resolved itself into a committee of the whole House on -the Schedule of the Enumeration of the Inhabitants of the United States. - -Mr. PAGE addressed the Chair as follows: - -Mr. CHAIRMAN: I can no longer refrain from expressing my sentiments -respecting the question before the committee; not only because I wish if -possible to remove the error which I think several members, for whom I -have the highest respect, have fallen into, but because I feel myself -more interested in the question than I ever was in any one I have had to -decide on. - -Sir, it gave me pain to find those worthy members calculating and coldly -applying the rules of arithmetic to a subject beyond the power of -numbers to express the degree of its importance to their -fellow-citizens. I was distressed, sir, to find that, in their honest -zeal for securing order, despatch of business, and dignity in -respectability of members in the General Legislature, they used -arguments which have been applied in other countries to the -establishment of insolent aristocracies--in some, tyrannical -despotisms--and in others, kings; those countries which were most on -their guard with a semblance of a free Government. - -Sir, the errors I wish to correct are these. They think that because it -is _proposed_, by a _proposed_ amendment to the constitution, to -authorize them to interfere in the business of ascertaining and fixing -the ratio of representation to the population of the States, that -Congress ought, without any hesitation, to enter on that business; but I -humbly conceive that Congress, as this is a delicate question in which -their own weight and importance must unite with the weight and -substantial interest of their constituents, ought to listen to the -suggestions of delicacy, and leave its discussion to a disinterested -convention of the States. I say it appears to me no small error to quit -the plain path of legislation, marked out for us by the constitution, -needlessly to wander into the field of political speculation respecting -its supposed defects. - -Let me, therefore, advise to leave the restriction of the numbers of -members of this House to the people, or to some future Congress, which -can see more plainly than can now be descried, the evils of a too -numerous representation. By so doing, we shall avoid, if not an improper -measure, at least a rash step--at least we shall stand clear of a charge -of indelicacy, and deprive our enemies of the triumph they expected in -the completion of their predictions, that Congress would never propose -any amendments to the constitution but such as would be subservient to -their own views and aggrandizement. Let us not give the enemies of our -new Government cause to exult, and its friends to sigh and mourn. Let us -not give our friends occasion to repeat what many have said, that so -many of our citizens have been led away by theoretical writers on -government, as to render it problematical whether the American States -are not at this time as much indebted to the National Assembly for its -remains of Republican principles, as France was to Congress, in 1776, -for their first ideas of that liberty which they now enjoy. Let us not, -in this moment of general exultation of the friends to the rights of -man, take a step which may damp their joy, and lead them to fear that -Americans, who were foremost in the glorious career of liberty, have -stopped short. - -But, not to take up the precious time of this House with relations of -facts to show what was and is the opinion of our fellow-citizens on this -interesting subject, I will only state a few arguments which have weight -with me as being in themselves evident truths, viz: Our constitution -being framed by the people, and introduced to us in their name, and -Congress being the creatures of their will, spoken into existence by the -word of their power, for Congress to lessen _their_ weight, to diminish -their importance, and to exclude them from as full a share in their own -Government as can be consistent with the nature of it, and indeed from -that share which they claim, must be impolitic and dangerous. - -But, granting that the people wished not a greater share in the General -Government than is proposed by the amendment, as it is impossible, in a -country like the United States, that one man can be sufficiently -informed of the opinions, wishes, and real interests of thirty-five -thousand of his fellow-citizens, and therefore laws might be enacted -contrary to the opinions, wishes, and interests of the people, in which -they might nevertheless acquiesce, sacrificing their interests for the -sake of peace and quiet to the wills of their Representatives, one -thirty-five-thousandth part of their own number, what friend to his -country would wish to see such a dangerous influence on the one hand, -and such a blind submission on the other? How long could an enlightened -people remain in such a state of insensibility and torpor? And what -might not be the consequence of their awakening from their lethargy? If -not an expensive revolution, an expensive repeal of laws. And here I -will remark, that the smallest number of Legislators, and they, too, -well selected for their wisdom and respectability, if unacquainted with -their constituents, might pass well-framed laws, founded on the wisdom -of other countries, and yet find them disagreeable to their -constituents, and be under a necessity of repealing them; but this could -not be the case, if the people had in that Legislature a sufficient -number of Representatives on whose fidelity, attachment, and -disinterestedness they could rely. This, sir, is a truth worthy of our -attention--an ignorance of which, or inattention thereto, I suspect has -been the occasion of much political evil in the world. Happily for -France, the people had such a number of Representatives in the National -Assembly as could engage their feeling, inform their judgment, attach -their interest, and establish their confidence in their fidelity and -disinterestedness; had that number been much smaller, it is probable -France would never have been delivered from oppression by their -exertions. - -I know, sir, that many friends of our constitution thought that the -convention did not pay a sufficient attention to the interests of their -constituents, when they restrained them from having more than one -Representative for every thirty thousand citizens. I know that there is -a report that the people are indebted to their President, even for this -share in their Government; and I believe, sir, if this report be true, -that whatever has been so justly said of him, as compared to Fabius, to -Hannibal, to Alexander, may be forgotten, when this instance of his -wisdom, disinterestedness, and attachment to the interests of his -fellow-citizens, will be more and more known and applauded, and be for -ever engraved on the hearts of their posterity. Shall we, then, Mr. -Chairman, the direct Representatives of the people, be less attentive to -their interest, and that too respecting their share in the deliberations -of their own House of Representatives, than the President of their -convention was? I trust not. - -I will not pretend to say, however, whether in an Assembly where -attempts are frequently made to carry into effect the projects of -monarchical or aristocratical juntos, the virtuous struggles of -patriotic members may not produce mob-like disorders; but in an Assembly -like Congress, where I should suppose no such question can be agitated; -none which may not be discussed with temper and decency, such disorder -need not be apprehended. I should suppose there would be less clanger of -animosities and disorderly debates in Congress, amongst twelve hundred -members, than in the British Parliament, if it consisted but of one -hundred. Where we have all but one and the same great object in view, -the happiness of our country, (not the interests of a particular body of -men born with privileges insulting to the feelings and rights of -freemen, nor the whims of an individual, born to trample on his -fellow-creatures,) we can have no cause to be dissatisfied with one -another. - -Surely, sir, unless these gentlemen suppose the members of Congress void -of sense, or of every idea of decency and propriety, they cannot suppose -that even five hundred members would not be easily restrained within the -bounds of order. - -Mr. CLARK said, he did not rise to trouble the House with a lengthy -discourse, for he had always believed that long speeches answer no -valuable purpose. He meant only to offer a few remarks on what had been -said in opposition to his former observations, and he hoped that, -although the gentlemen contend for the ratio of 30,000 as the only basis -whereon to found the liberties of the people, he should not be -stigmatized with the name of an aristocrat for voting in favor of a -large ratio. Hitherto he had not borne that character, and he could not -suppose himself yet infected, unless he had caught the disorder since he -became a member of the present House. Much has been said about the -influence of the bank, and that bank directors are members of the House -of Representatives. The bank (said he) is public property, and therefore -he could not see the force of the gentleman's arguments respecting the -dangerous influence of that institution, unless it was that he was -displeased at the distribution of the shares, so much of the stock being -held at New York and to the eastward, and so little at Conococheague. In -the same predicament he viewed the other objections respecting the -influence of speculators; for he did not know that any members of the -House were speculators, neither could he see any danger from bribery. - -In reply to Mr. FINDLAY'S observation, that more wisdom would be brought -into the House by increasing the ratio, he asked whether this would not -also bring in more folly? For the probability is, that the ratio of both -wisdom and folly will increase with the increase of numbers, and -likewise of honesty and dishonesty; and with respect to the smallness of -the district, or that it was safer for a small number to send a member -than a greater, he was of a different opinion, as he believed that if -ever the practice of bribery should come into play in America, it would -be easier for a Representative to purchase a small district than a large -one. If ever the liberties of the people are endangered, it will not be -by the smallness of the representation, but by the corruption of -electors and elections. This is the door which Congress should guard in -the strictest manner, and that will secure the people against corruption -in the House. - -A gentleman from Georgia has observed, that the disposition of a great -many millions of dollars has been in the hands of a quorum of this -House, of whom it requires only seventeen to form a majority. On this -Mr. C. observed, that the old Congress, which was composed of a much -smaller number, were intrusted with the disposal of larger sums, -although there were sometimes only two members from the largest State, -Virginia, and no complaints were heard of their conduct. - -But there is an argument which ought to have weight in the present -question. The Senate, although a much smaller body than this House, are -fully competent to judge of our proceedings, and of the safety of the -country. Indeed, (said Mr. C.,) it appears very evident to me that we -are not in want of a larger number in the House of Representatives to -debate any question, if it be considered how much has already been said -on the subject now before us. - -Mr. VINING expressed much surprise that the subject, which to him -appeared perfectly definable, should have occasioned the debate to -travel so widely from the line marked out by the constitution. The -pendulum seems to vibrate between the numbers 81, 96, and 113; and -should that pendulum rest on any one of them in preference to the -others, he could not suppose that it would affect the liberties of -America. Why, therefore, all this extraneous argument about a point of -so easy decision? We are sent here to administer the Government, the -first principles of which are already fixed, so that neither branch can -encroach on the other. The Senate, the House of Representatives, the -President, have each defined powers; and whilst those remain, I shall -always believe the liberties of America are invulnerable. - -Under this impression, Mr. Chairman, I shall vote for striking out -30,000, in order to accommodate the question to a medium. But I shall do -this on different principles from some other gentlemen; notwithstanding, -I at the same time confess that the ratification of the first amendment -to the constitution ought to govern us in deciding this question. The -spirit of the amendment appears to me clearly to imply that we should -not suffer the number of Representatives to exceed one for 30,000. I am -here, not as a person who shall exercise discretionary opinions, but -judge by the letter of the constitution. And in this case we may -increase the number, but we cannot make it less after the enumeration. -In the mean time, until that enumeration is complete, the representation -remains as it has been hitherto, which I believe may be about one member -to every 40,000 or 41,000. - -If we go upon theory only, I would enlarge the representation to its -greatest extent, and hand down the principle to futurity, in letters of -gold, that a very great representation--that Democracy is the very best -Government that can possibly be devised, provided it were practicable to -give it stability. Next to a government as free as theory could extend, -we have the freest in the world--a Government of representation, which -will increase with the population of the country, and the ten new States -will always preserve an equilibrium; but if you increase it to an -extreme, you may render it tumultuous, although it may be safe. - -I cannot, however, see the propriety of comparing this to the Government -of Great Britain, although that is called a Government of -Representation, consisting of two Houses of Parliament, one of which is -elective, the Lords are hereditary, and the King can do no wrong; and it -has hitherto been, I believe, the next best Government, after our own, -in the world. And yet we know with how much reluctance Ireland obtained -a participation of the trade and commerce of Great Britain; although a -FLOOD bellowed forth with the voice of liberty like a Demosthenes, still -nothing could induce the British Ministry to give way, until the -_volunteers_ effected it. And have we not the volunteers, sir, in this -country to protect our rights? Yes, sir, the American volunteers are -perfectly competent to this service. - -I am under no apprehensions from the stockholders of the bank, or the -speculators in the funds; for it is their interest to have a wise and -good representation. The people who are employed in the more simple path -of agriculture, removed at a great distance, are not more interested in -the security of the Government than the more informed stockholder. As an -example of the discernment of the great commercial people of London and -Bristol, I need only mention their choice of a FOX and a BURKE, for -until a late day Mr. Burke was the champion of the people and the friend -of liberty. - -If our Senate should take any unwarrantable stride towards aristocracy, -have we not the power to check them? No President can very well attempt -it at any time hereafter; and we are perfectly secure in the present -time from all suspicion of corruption. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE said he had ever been a friend to a Republican form of -Government, and God forbid, that he should ever give his vote for any -measure that should endanger the liberties of his country. He was in -favor of an energetic government, as that alone can secure the blessings -of liberty. As to the dread of corruption in this House, which some -gentlemen appeared to entertain, he thought there was no foundation for -such an apprehension; at least as the idea refers to one or two hundred -Representatives--two hundred he contended, were as easily corrupted as -one. But the corruption contemplated was a mere matter of opinion; no -facts, he presumed, existed in this country to justify a positive -assertion; and as to foreign countries, it seems to be conceded that a -larger number than any that has been mentioned is susceptible of undue -influence. He then adverted to the restrictions on the President of the -United States, and the Senate, in respect to the means of corrupting the -Legislature. The constitution has also made provision to secure the -independence of the members, &c. He then urged some difficulties which -would be occasioned by a small ratio. He observed that the population of -some of the States is nearly stationary: if a small ratio is now -established, the consequence will be, when it is augmented, that the -representation of those States must be diminished. This would be a -measure that would be greatly disliked. With respect to the proposed -amendment, he thought it was entirely out of the question, till it was -ratified by three-fourths of the States. A very numerous representation -would tend to weaken, if not destroy the State Governments, and, in the -issue, would destroy the General Government. For, said he, they mutually -depend on each other for support. - -Mr. KITCHELL was in favor of a numerous representation. He thought the -amendment proposed to the constitution ought to be the guide to the -House on this occasion. He did not draw his ideas of what should -constitute a proper representation, from the examples cited from foreign -countries; nor was he actuated by an apprehension of corruption, as more -applicable to a small number than to a large one; but when he considered -the various objects, views, denominations, professions, callings and -interests of the citizens of the United States, he was fully convinced -that a large representation was necessary to embrace the wishes and -answer the expectations of the people. He should, therefore, vote -against the motion for striking out thirty thousand. - -Mr. GERRY took a general survey of the arguments against the proposed -ratio of one to thirty thousand. In noticing the objection from the -instability of the State Legislatures, he said it was not owing to their -numbers, but to the mode in which they are elected. Were the Senates and -Executives of the several States chosen as those of the General -Government, there would have been as much stability and consistency in -their transactions, as in those of the Government of the Union. A -gentleman had said that the proposed amendments to the constitution had -been adopted with reluctance by some of the States which had accepted -them. He called on the gentleman to produce his authorities for this -assertion. A relative proportion between the members of the House and -the Senate had been suggested; this idea had no foundation in the -constitution. And he further observed, that the constitution has so -completely guarded and secured the rights and independence of the -Senate, that he could not conceive of the apprehensions of gentlemen, -who appear to think that an increase of the members of this House will -overwhelm that branch of the Legislature. In all events, the privileges -of that body will remain the same. The States, it is said, have reduced -their Representative Assemblies. This, so far from being an argument -against the proposed ratio, was directly in favor of it. The diminution -of the State Legislatures has been occasioned by the idea which the -people entertain of the increasing importance of the General Government. -The objects of legislation to both Governments are nearly similar; they -relate to those important concerns which interest the feelings of every -citizen of the United States; all the difference lies in the magnitude -of their respective spheres of action. Hence, it must evidently be the -wish and expectation of the people, that their interests in every point -of view, should be fully and adequately represented in this House. - -The resolution being again read, in the following words: - - "_Resolved_, That the number of Representatives shall, - until the next enumeration, be one for thirty thousand." - -The question was taken thereupon and agreed to by the House; yeas 35, -nays 23, as follows: - -YEAS.--Abraham Baldwin, Egbert Benson, John Brown, William Findlay, -Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, William B. Giles, James Gordon, -Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, Daniel Heister, Daniel Huger, Israel -Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, John W. Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, -Richard Bland Lee, James Madison, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus -Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, John Page, Josiah Parker, Joshua Seney, -Upton Sheridine, Thomas Sumter, Peter Sylvester, Thomas Tredwell, -Thomas Tudor Tucker, Abraham Venable, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Anthony Wayne, -Alexander White, and Francis Willis. - -NAYS.--Fisher Ames, John Baptist Ashe, Robert Barnwell, Elias Boudinot, -Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, Nicholas Gilman, -Benjamin Goodhue, William Barry Grove, James Hillhouse, Samuel -Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, Nathaniel Niles, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah -Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Jonathan Sturges, -George Thatcher, John Vining, and Artemas Ward. - -_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said -resolution; and that Mr. PAGE, Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. MACON do prepare and -bring in the same. - - -TUESDAY, November 22. - -A memorial of the committee of the counties of Washington, Westmoreland, -Fayette, and Alleghany, in the State of Pennsylvania, was presented to -the House and read, stating their objections to an act, passed at the -last session, imposing a duty on spirits distilled within the United -States, and praying that the same may be repealed. Referred to the -Secretary of the Treasury for his information. - -_Representative from Maryland._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -report of the standing Committee of Elections, to whom was referred the -Letter from the Executive of the State of Maryland, containing the -resignation of WILLIAM PINKNEY, a member returned to serve in this House -for the said State; and also a certificate of the election of JOHN -FRANCIS MERCER, in the room of the said WILLIAM PINKNEY. - -The law of the State of Maryland regulating elections being called for, -was produced and read; by which it appeared that the Governor and -Council of that State were authorized to fill up vacancies in the -representation of that State in Congress. - -Some objections having been offered against accepting the report, - -Mr. SENEY observed, that the case appeared to him to be so plain that he -was surprised to find gentlemen objecting to an acceptation of the -report of the committee. He then stated the whole process of the -business, in the resignation of Mr. PINKNEY and the election of Mr. -MERCER, in which the law of the State had been strictly adhered to. He -concluded by saying, that two cases in point had already occurred in the -State of Connecticut, and no difficulty respecting them had taken place -in the House. - -Mr. GILES said, that he was a member of the select committee which had -made the report; and from an accurate attention to all the circumstances -of the case, he was led to think the report a very improper one. From -recurring to the constitution, he was of opinion that a resignation did -not constitute a vacancy. The constitution speaks only of vacancies in -general, and does not contemplate one as resulting from a resignation. -Adverting to the British House of Commons, he observed that in that body -there could be no resignation. This is an established principle. The -people having once chosen their representatives, their power ceases, and -consequently the body to which the resignation ought to be made no -longer exists. From the experience of the British Government in this -respect, he argued against a deviation from this rule. He showed from -the constitution, that the Executives of the States who are empowered to -fill vacancies, are not at all authorized to declare the existence of -such vacancies; for, if they are to judge in the case, the whole power -is invested in them of determining the whole business of vacancies--an -idea that materially and essentially affects the privileges of the -members of the House. He remarked that, even by the law of Maryland, the -requisite steps had not been pursued by the Executive of that State. He -concluded by saying that, if the principles he had advanced were just, -he hoped the report would not be accepted. - -Mr. SMITH (S. C.) had had his doubts on the report; but on more mature -consideration he was convinced that on account of the inconvenience -which would result from rejecting it, and from other considerations, it -was proper to adopt it, but not without a full discussion. He then -stated some particulars to show that the vacancy which had occurred on -this occasion could not properly be called a resignation. Mr. PINKNEY -had never taken his seat, nor the requisite oath. He said that there was -no analogy between the Parliament of Great Britain and this House; the -mode of issuing the writs originally, and of filling up vacancies, is -essentially different. No part of the constitution prohibits a member -from resigning, and for convenience it ought to be concluded that he may -resign. The public interest may suffer extremely in cases of sickness or -embarrassments, which may prevent a member from attending. This argument -from the body's not existing to whom the resignation ought to be made, -will apply to the President of the United States, whose resignation is -expressly mentioned in the constitution. The objection urged from the -Executives of the States judging of vacancies, he conceived had no great -force, for Congress would finally judge in every case of election. It is -uncertain how the practice of the British Parliament originated. -_Blackstone_ says nothing of resignations. When a member wants to resign -in that Legislature, he gets appointed to some fictitious office which -disqualifies him from sitting in the House. He thought it best to -establish some precedent, rather than oblige members who may wish to -resign to have recourse to some familiar method, by accepting of some -appointment in the State which is incompatible with a seat. - -Mr. MURRAY said he was in favor of accepting the report, both on account -of propriety and conveniency. Vacancies may happen from various -causes--by resignation, by death, or by expulsion--the Executive of the -State is the proper judge in the first case. He stated certain -differences between a resignation after a person has taken his seat, and -a resignation before that event. In the former case Congress will of -course give notice to the Executive of the State; in the latter, the -Executive alone can take cognizance of the resignation. He stated the -extreme inconveniency which would result from the ideas of the gentleman -from Virginia, as it would respect the State of Georgia. He then stated -several particulars to show that Mr. PINKNEY was not a member of the -House agreeably to the constitution, and therefore the House cannot -proceed with him as one. He said that we ought to be willing to derive -information from the experience of every country; but he conceived that -no precedents could be drawn that would apply in the present case from a -country which had none, to one which had a constitution that so clearly -defined and guarded the rights of the citizens. The custom which had -been mentioned as obtaining in that country, arose from a wish to -prevent a frequency of elections. From what had been offered by the -gentleman from South Carolina, and the ideas he had suggested, he hoped -the committee would be induced to accept the report. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON said, that it appeared to him that the constitution -contemplates that a member may resign. He read the clause, which says -that no member of the Legislature shall accept of an office made _during -the time_ for which he was chosen--from hence he inferred that -resignations were clearly contemplated. - -Mr. GERRY said that he had heard nothing to show that Mr. PINKNEY had -ever accepted of his appointment, and therefore it ought to have been -expressed that he had declined; but, granting he had resigned after -accepting his appointment, he asserted that nothing had been offered to -prove that resignations might not take place in one House as well as in -the other; and the constitution plainly expresses that a Senator may -resign. The House of Commons originated with the Kings, who formed that -body to control the Lords; and hence arose the prohibition against -resignations, as they would weaken the body, and the expense of a new -election would fall on the King. With respect to the Executive declaring -improper vacancies, he observed that Congress was invested with full -power to control the Executives of the States in respect to such -declarations. - -Mr. SENEY observed upon a distinction made by Mr. GILES between a -resignation on the part of a Senator and a Member of the House, he -supposed a resignation in either would equally vacate a seat, and that -no difference did really exist. - -Mr. SEDGWICK observed that, if a power of adjudication was vested in the -Executives of the States to determine on a vacancy in cases of -resignation, it would involve this consequence, that a power of judging -of vacancies in all possible cases would be the necessary result. He -thought the proposition involved the most serious effects with respect -to the privileges and independency of this House. - -This subject was further discussed the next day, and ended in an -acceptation of the report of the committee, which was in favor of Mr. -MERCER's election. - - -MONDAY, December 5. - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the bill making appropriations for the support of Government, for the -year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two; and, after some time -spent therein, - -_Ordered_, That the said bill, with amendments, be recommitted to Mr. -LAURANCE, Mr. BALDWIN, and Mr. ASHE. - -The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the -Treasury, accompanying his report on the subject of manufactures, made -pursuant to an order of the House of the fifteenth of January, one -thousand seven hundred and ninety; which was read, and ordered to lie on -the table. - -The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Treasury of the -United States, accompanying his account of receipts and expenditures of -the public moneys between the first of July, and the thirtieth of -September, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one; which were read -and ordered to lie on the table. - -Mr. BENSON laid on the table a resolution for the appointment of a -committee to join a committee of the Senate, to consider and report the -most eligible manner of carrying into effect a former resolution of -Congress respecting the erection of an Equestrian Statue, in honor of -General WASHINGTON. - -_Appropriation Bill._ - -The House then, pursuant to the order of the day, resolved itself into a -Committee of the Whole, and resumed the consideration of the -appropriation bill, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair. - -In proceeding through the bill, the several items were separately -considered and agreed to. Some occasional remarks were made; but no -material debate took place. One amendment was proposed, by which the -bill is made to express the several purposes for which the moneys are -appropriated, instead of appropriating sums in gross, with a reference -to the Secretary's estimate, for particulars. - -The committee having reported the bill and the amendment, the House -adopted the same, and recommitted the bill to the select committee, who -had originally framed it, with instructions to new-model it pursuant to -the sense of the House. - -Mr. GERRY presented a resolution in lieu of one which he laid on the -table on Friday last, making it the duty of the Secretary of the -Treasury to report to the House, on the third Monday of every session, -an account of the receipts and expenditures of the public money -appropriated during the preceding session, so far as he shall then have -it in his power to state particulars; and if he be unable to give an -accurate statement of the whole, at the time appointed, he is to -complete it as soon afterwards as may be. - - -TUESDAY, December 6. - -_Resolved_, That Mr. BENSON, Mr. GERRY, and Mr. SMITH, (of South -Carolina,) be appointed a committee on the part of this House, jointly, -with such committee as shall be appointed on the part of the Senate, to -consider and report to Congress the most eligible manner for carrying -into effect the resolution of the United States in Congress assembled, -of the seventh of August, 1783, directing that an Equestrian Statue of -General WASHINGTON should be erected. - - -MONDAY, December 12. - -The following Message was received from the President of the United -States. - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - It is with great concern that I communicate to you the - information received from Major General St. Clair, of the - misfortune which has befallen the troops under his command. - - Although the national loss is considerable, according to - the scale of the event, yet it may be repaired without - great difficulty, excepting as to the brave men who have - fallen on the occasion, and who are a subject of public as - well as private regret. - - A farther communication will shortly be made of all such - matters as shall be necessary to enable the Legislature to - judge of the future measures which it may be proper to - pursue. - - GEORGE WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _December_ 12, 1791. - - -FRIDAY, December 16. - -_The Post Office Bill._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on -the bill "for establishing the Post Office and Post Roads within the -United States." - - [The following is a condensed view of the arguments made on - striking out the section which gives to members the - privilege of franking.] - -When the bill under consideration is once passed into a law, it is -presumable that no gentleman will ever ask a member to frank for him, as -he cannot grant the request consistently with his honor; the -apprehension entertained of the existence of abuses, and of their -increasing with the increase of numbers, would be an argument equally -valid against every law; for no law can be framed, as that the people -will not find means to evade it. But still the Legislature will have the -power of correcting the abuses, as soon as discovered, by passing new -laws to check them. The committee who drafted the bill, had before them -all the acts of the British Legislature, respecting the post office; -they saw the abuses and how they had been remedied; and with such light -to guide their steps, they had proceeded in the execution of their task. -The privilege of franking they had introduced into the bill, upon mature -considerations; to take it away would be leveling a deadly stroke at the -liberty of the press; the information conveyed by franks, may be -considered as the vital juices, and the channels of the post office as -the veins; and if these are stopped, the body must be destroyed; it is -treading on dangerous ground, to take any measures that may stop the -channels of public information, especially of that which relates to -matters in which the people are interested; to check the circulation -even of foreign intelligence may be dangerous; but it is highly so, to -deprive the people of information respecting the measures of the General -Government; nor ought the members to complain of being obliged to read -so many letters and petitions as come to their hands in consequence of -the exemption from postage. If any gentleman thought this a heavy task, -he ought to remember that it was only his duty, and a task which every -member had undertaken when he accepted a seat in the House. - -The privilege of franking was granted to the members, not as a personal -advantage, (for in fact it proved rather a burden), but as a benefit to -their constituents, who, by means of it, derive information from those -who are best qualified to give it, as they are the persons chosen to -administer the General Government. The members also receive useful -information through the same channel. When the impost law and the excise -law were under consideration, many persons who were better acquainted -with the operation of such laws, transmitted to the House much valuable -information on those subjects; and to such information the House ought -ever to be open; as, on the other hand, the motives for adopting certain -measures, ought always to be explained to influential characters in the -different parts of the Union. Such conduct will produce the most -salutary effects in reconciling the people to the measures of -Government, when the principles upon which every law is framed, are -explained to them, as well by the correspondence of the members, as by -their debates, published in the newspapers. It is the duty of the -members to disperse the newspapers among those people who cannot, -perhaps, otherwise obtain them, under the protection of franks. Even -along the post roads, the common packets of newspapers are not safe from -depredation; but when once they get into the interior parts of the -country, there is hardly any chance of their escaping; whereas, under -the cover of a frank, they are sure to reach their destination in -safety. - -If the privilege were confined, during the session, to letters sent from -and received at the seat of Government, and the members limited to -their own letters, and obliged to write the whole superscription, the -increase of the apprehended abuses would be prevented; if it were -further restricted, by limiting to those letters only what are sent to -or come from the State to which the member belongs, this would convince -the people, that the privilege was intended for the benefit, not of the -members, but of their constituents. - -Further, it was observed, that every argument, which might be adduced in -favor of withdrawing the privilege from the members of Congress, might -be used with equal force in the cases of President, Vice President, and -every other public officer, mentioned in the same section. If the -allowance of six dollars per day was a reason for subjecting the members -to the payment of postage, every public officer ought also, on the same -principle, to pay for his letters, as they were all compensated with -equal liberality. If abuses were apprehended from the members, others -were as likely to introduce them as they; if an increase of revenue was -contemplated, the postage of all letters to and from the President, the -Vice President, the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of the -Department of War, &c., would contribute to that increase; but, on the -other hand, those gentlemen must have their compensations increased, if -their letters were to be taxed; for they could not be expected to pay -for them at their own expense. If the privilege can be guarded against -abuse, with respect to those officers, it can also be guarded in the -case of members of Congress. - -The establishment of the post office is agreed to be for no other -purpose than the conveyance of information into every part of the Union; -and a greater portion of that had been conveyed into many of the -interior parts of the country, by the newspapers sent by the members of -the House, than could be conveyed by other means, excepting on the main -roads on which stages go. That information had proved highly serviceable -to the present Government; for wherever the newspapers had extended, or -even the correspondence of the members, no opposition has been made to -the laws; whereas, the contrary was experienced in those parts to which -the information had not penetrated; and even there, the opposition -ceased, as soon as the principles on which the laws had been passed, -were made known to the people. - -As long as the privilege can be thus used for the general advantages of -the citizens, it ought not to be relinquished by the members merely -through fear of its being thought a personal privilege; it might be -confined to members actually attending the session; they might be -obliged to write the whole superscription, and even to add the date. In -short, the wisdom of the House, it was hoped, would prevent all the -evils apprehended from it, and retain the advantages. - -The question being taken on the motion, for withdrawing the privilege -from the members, it passed in the negative; yeas 21, nays 35. - - -TUESDAY, December 20. - -_Post Office Bill._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the bill for establishing the Post Office and Post Roads within the -United States. - -Mr. WADSWORTH moved an amendment, to withdraw the privilege of franking -from the members of both Houses of Congress. - -In support of this motion, it was said, that the grand security which -the people of the United States have in their Representatives is, that -those Representatives are subject to the same regulations as their -constituents. In the article of postage, this was not the case. -Congress, in this case, assume to themselves a privilege, which they -refuse to the people; they took money from their constituents, and paid -none themselves. The people viewed this privilege with a jealous eye, -and could not be pleased to see it enjoyed by Congress, whilst neither -the members of the State Assemblies, nor even the Governors were -indulged in it. Congress enjoys only chartered rights; and all rights -not expressly mentioned in the charter, are of course excluded. The -constitution is their charter; the Convention, who framed it, had, no -doubt, well considered the whole subject of privileges and accurately -defined all such as they wished the Legislative body should enjoy -distinct from their constituents. In the enumeration of those -privileges, there is not a syllable tending to exonerate them from their -share of the common burden of postage; they have no constitutional claim -to such an immunity, and if they assumed it they would increase the -burden on their constituents. The post office, if unable to maintain -itself, must derive its support from other sources of revenue. Already -the members of both Houses send and receive, during their session, as -many letters through the General Post Office as all the other -inhabitants of Philadelphia; those letters, if paid at the usual rates, -would amount to half the postage of the United States. The number and -bulk of the franked letters and packets excluded the newspapers from the -mail, and thus prevented the circulation of intelligence; if the evil -increased (and there was no probability of its being diminished, except -by the utter abolition of the privilege) it would eventually prove the -ruin of the post office. The example of Britain showed to what an -enormous height the abuse of such a privilege may be carried; and though -similar abuses may not as yet have taken place here, yet it could hardly -be doubted that many unnecessary letters were daily sent by the post, -which never would have been written if subject to postage; those letters -are not only unproductive, but an actual expense to the post office, as -the postmaster receives a certain percentage on these, as well as upon -other letters. The privilege of franking is moreover unequal in its -operation; while some members use it only for the purpose of -transmitting political information to their constituents, others, -absent perhaps during the whole session, use it for very different -purposes: to men in trade it was a considerable advantage, amounting -probably, in some instances, to a hundred dollars a year. It would be -better to take away the privilege entirely, and reduce the general rates -of postage one-half, or to allow the members, at the close of each -session, to make a charge for all letters on public business, from their -constituents, or to make them an allowance in gross to defray the -expense of postage; better, even, if necessary, to make an addition to -the compensation which the members receive for their services, if the -present one be found incompetent to their honorable support. - -On the other hand, it was observed, that the privilege of franking was -not assumed by the members for their own private accommodation, but for -the benefit of their constituents, to transmit to them every necessary -information respecting the operations of the General Government, and to -receive from them such information as they might have to communicate. -Petitions are frequently enclosed to members; and if these were to be -subject to the payment of postage, the privilege of petitioning the -House, would be in a great measure destroyed. The diminution of revenue -which the post office might in some instances suffer from the privilege -of franking, ought not to be deemed a sufficient reason for abolishing -that privilege; since it is allowed, that the object contemplated in the -establishment was the general convenience, and an easy and speedy mode -of disseminating public and private intelligence. Revenue was but a -secondary consideration. Although the citizens who live at the seat of -Government, and have daily opportunities of learning from the newspapers -what public measures are going forward, may not be materially affected -by the abrogation of the privilege, yet the case would be widely -different with those who live at a distance, especially when fiscal -operations were on foot; those who are informed, will make a prey of -those who are ignorant, and destructive speculation will enrich the few, -at the expense of the many. In a government of opinion (which is the -Government of America) much greater reliance is to be placed on the -confidence of the people than upon any other circumstance: that -confidence can only be the result of the fullest information; but if the -privilege of franking were taken away, the avenues of information would -be, in a great measure, closed, for the members could not undertake, at -their own private expense, to transmit intelligence to every part of the -Union; yet the citizens have a right to expect information, not only of -the acts of Government, but also the principles upon which they were -grounded. The abuses of the privilege, that have prevailed in England, -do not prevail here; and its abolition would give general -dissatisfaction, particularly in the more distant parts of the Union, -where information would be subject to a very high tax, if circulated -through the post office, at the ordinary rates of postage. Of those -bundles of letters received and dispatched by members of Congress, many -(though far from being unnecessary, as had been said) would perhaps -never be written, if they were not to pass free of postage; and thus -that free communication of sentiment between the Representative and -constituent, which is so essential in a Government like this, would be -in a great measure cut off; and the post office would gain little or -nothing by it, as those packets of newspapers, bills, reports, &c., -would either be sent by private hand, or not sent at all; even here an -inequality would prevail, as the people who live near the seat of -Government, and all along the main road, could, from the greater -frequency of opportunities, receive such packets with more ease and -regularity, whilst those in more remote situations could seldom or never -receive them, unless by the mail. The expense arising from the -percentage to the postmaster on the free letters, is but trifling, as in -such cases he receives no more for a packet of two ounces than for a -single letter; and as to the idea of allowing the members to make a -charge for their letters, this would be no better than receiving with -one hand and paying away with the other. If, however, it were found -absolutely necessary to take precautions against the abuses that were -apprehended, this might be done by limiting the number or weight of -letters that should go free by any one post, without entirely preventing -the interchange of sentiments between the Representative and his -constituents. - -The committee then rose, without taking the question on the amendment. - - -THURSDAY, December 22. - -_Election of President, &c._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act relative to the election of -a President and Vice President of the United States, and declaring the -officer who shall act as President, in case of vacancies in the offices -both of President and Vice President." - -The bill was read by the Clerk. The first section being again read by -the Chairman, - -Mr. TUCKER moved to amend this clause by striking out these words, -"except in cases in which an extraordinary election of President and -Vice President shall take place, as hereinafter specified." This motion -was agreed to. - -Mr. SEDGWICK made some general observations on the great objects of the -bill, and adverting to the term proposed for the choice of Electors of -President and Vice President, observed that he had his doubts whether it -would not be best to give a longer time. He enlarged on the disagreeable -consequences which would probably ensue, in case there should not be a -choice by the Electors; as the matter must then be determined by the -House, voting according to the constitution, by States. He descanted on -the pernicious consequences which might result from the collision of -parties, and the working of passions in the breasts of men whose ardor -would probably be excited to the greatest degree on such an occasion; -every reasonable measure should be adopted to prevent the evils which he -deprecated; he therefore moved that the words "thirty days" should be -struck out, in order to give the people a longer time to give in their -votes for Electors. - -Mr. WHITE objected to the motion. He conceived it was calculated to -produce the very mischiefs the gentleman appeared to deprecate. If it -had been possible, he could have wished that the Electors should meet -and give in their votes on the very day of their being chosen; he wished -as much as the gentleman to adopt measures to prevent the evils he -mentioned; but did not think the motion would conduce to that object; he -thought the time should rather be contracted than extended. - -Mr. DAYTON also objected to the motion; he thought fourteen days would -be a more proper time; it was the design of the constitution, though it -is not expressed, that the President should not know the characters to -whom he is indebted for his election. - -Mr. SEDGWICK observed, that the objections would be very proper was it -certainly known that the Electors would always agree in a choice; but -this he conceived, it was hardly possible should always be the case; and -what will then take place? The election devolves on this House, and the -Electors will then be known, and liable to all that intrigue and cabal -which has prevailed in other countries. He left it to the consideration -of the committee to determine on the immense importance of providing in -season against the evils of a contested election, in the case now before -them. - -Mr. BALDWIN objected to the motion; but said if it was struck out, he -should then move to insert a clause which should assign different -periods according to the circumstances of the several States, so that -the Electors should meet as nearly as possible at the same time in all -the States. - -Mr. NILES objected to the motion; and the question being put it was -negatived. - -The clause which makes it the duty of the Executive of the several -States to cause the names of the Electors to be certified, was objected -to. - -Mr. NILES observed that no person could be called upon to discharge any -duty on behalf of the United States, who had not accepted of an -appointment under their authority. He thought that this was opening the -door too wide, and involves a blending of the respective powers and -duties of each, which is not warranted by the constitution; and he -observed that he should be sorry that the Government of the United -States should attempt to exercise a power which they are not competent -to carry into execution. He moved that the clause should be struck out. - -Mr. SEDGWICK observed that if Congress were not authorized to call on -the Executives of the several States, he could not conceive what -description of persons they were empowered to call upon. - -Mr. NILES said he considered this section as degrading to the Executive -of the several States; and inquired, what is to be done in case those -Executives should refuse to comply with the requisition? - -Mr. CLARK said, it appeared to him that the committee was creating -difficulties where none before existed. He observed that the choosing -these Electors was a privilege conferred on the people, and that this -was merely pointing out the mode of exercising this privilege; he -thought the clause stood very well and would create no uneasiness -whatever. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE said, he considered the provision improper. It imposed a -duty on the Supreme Executives of the several States, which they might -or might not execute; and thus the necessary certificates may not be -made. He seconded the motion to strike out the clause, and proposed a -substitute making it the duty of the Electors to procure for themselves -the necessary certificates. - -Mr. LIVERMORE spoke in favor of the clause; he did not consider it -either as an undue assumption of power, or degrading to the Executives -of the respective States. - -Mr. BARNWELL said, a small addition to the clause would in his opinion -obviate every difficulty; the words he proposed to insert were--"or such -person as the Executive may appoint." - -Mr. STURGES moved to strike out "Executive," and insert "the -Legislature." - -Mr. J. SMITH said, it appeared to him that the proposed alteration would -amount to exactly the same thing; for the duty of giving the certificate -would eventually devolve on the Executive. - -The motion for striking out the clause was negatived. - -The ninth section provides, that in case of vacancies in the offices of -President and Vice President, the President of the Senate _pro tem._, or -the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President. - -Mr. WHITE moved the section should be struck out. He said the House had -formerly discussed the subject and could not agree; the first part of -the bill is necessary; this is not of immediate importance to be -attended to. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS said, he supposed the question must be determined some -time or other, and he knew of no reason why it should not be decided at -this time; to strike out the clause would, in effect, be to declare that -the House could not agree. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of striking out. - -Mr. LIVERMORE objected to the motion; he said no two subjects could -possibly be more intimately connected; and the provisions of the bill -are such as to render the intermission, during which this regency was -to take place, as short as possible; he hoped the clause would not be -stricken out. - -Mr. WHITE added some further objections to the section; he said it was -distinct from the bill, and though a majority of the committee were in -favor of the characters nominated, yet he thought it would be best to -make it the object of another bill, and of an independent discussion. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, he hoped the section would not be struck out, -especially if there is a majority of the committee in favor of it. He -observed, that last session there was no decision in the case; he -conceived it necessary that the business should be now decided on; and -adverting to the particular characters named, he said they were as far -removed from any influence of the Executive as any persons that could be -possibly pointed out. - -Mr. BARNWELL was in favor of going into a discussion of the subject at -this time. He said there was a large number of the present House who had -not heard the observations offered in the last Congress; he supposed the -present as proper a time to consider the subject as any that could -occur. If gentlemen who are opposed to the section will offer their -objections, he should be glad to hear them; if they were conclusive, he -should vote to strike out the section. If nothing was offered, he should -vote against the motion. - -Mr. STURGES mentioned several objections to the section, which in his -opinion rendered it unconstitutional; he could not find that the Speaker -of the House, or President of the Senate _pro tem._ were officers of the -Government in the sense contemplated by the constitution. The -compensations of the President and Vice President are settled by the -House; the Speaker would have to decide on those compensations; this he -said rendered him evidently improper. He further observed that the -consequence would be caballing and electioneering in the choice of -Speaker. - -Mr. WHITE said, the Speaker was not a permanent officer, if he could be -considered as one in any point of view; but he was of opinion, that he -was no more an officer of the Government than every other member of the -House. - -The question for striking out the section was negatived. - -Mr. STURGES then moved to strike out the words, "the President of the -Senate _pro tempore_, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives." - -Mr. GILES stated the reasons which he conceived fully proved the -unconstitutionality of the clause. The characters referred to he did not -think were officers. If they had been considered as such, it is probable -they would have been designated in the constitution; the constitution -refers to some permanent officer to be created pursuant to the -provisions therein contained. These persons are not permanent; a -permanent officer was contemplated; the subject was not to be left to -any casuality, if it could possibly be prevented. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, he did not know what officer could with propriety be -said to be permanent; offices are held during good behavior in some -instances, and in others during pleasure; but it will be impossible to -say that any officer is a permanent officer, for the expression is very -extensive. He was surprised to hear the idea controverted, that the -Speaker of the House, or the President of the Senate _pro tem._, is not -an officer. In common parlance he was sure there was no difficulty in -the matter. - -Mr. GERRY observed, that some gentleman had said the Speaker is not an -officer; but if he is not an officer, what is he? He then read a clause -from the constitution, which says that the House shall choose their -Speaker _and other officers_. He hoped, however, that the Speaker of the -House of Representatives would be struck out, in order to avoid blending -the Legislative and Executive branches together. He considered this -measure as a political stroke of the Senate; but he hoped that the House -would never consent to making their Speaker an amphibious animal. He -moved therefore that the words "Speaker of the House of Representatives" -should be struck out. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE objected to any officer appointed by the Executive being -inserted. He said, if that should be the case, the appointments would in -most cases be made with reference to that object; and hence important -offices would often be filled with improper and incompetent persons. -Besides, it was taking away the choice from the people, and thus -violating the first principle of a free elective Government. The Senate -are appointed by the people, or their Representatives, and hence, in his -opinion, filling the vacancy would devolve with the greatest propriety -on that body. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of the motion for striking out both the -characters. He observed, that this extensive construction of the meaning -of the word officer, would render it proper to point out any person in -the United States, whether connected with the Government or not, as a -proper person to fill the vacancy contemplated. - -Before taking the question upon the amendment, the committee rose. - - -TUESDAY, January 10. - -A memorial of George Turner, one of the Judges in and over the territory -of the United States north-west of the Ohio, was presented to the House -and read, praying a revision of the ordinance for the government of the -said territory, and also an increase of compensation to the Judges -thereof. Referred to Mr. LIVERMORE, Mr. LAURANCE, Mr. WHITE, Mr. -WILLIAMSON, and Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina); that they do examine the -matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to -the House. - -On a motion made and seconded, - - "That the Secretary of War be instructed to lay before this - House an accurate statement of all ascertained balances of - pay, which appear by the books of the United States to be - due to the officers and soldiers of the late Army of the - United States, and which still remain either unclaimed, or - claimed and unpaid, together with the reasons for - withholding payment from those who may have respectively - entered claims therefor;" - -_Ordered_, That the said motion be referred to Mr. WADSWORTH, Mr. GILES, -and Mr. SMITH, (of New Hampshire;) that they do examine the matter -thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the -House. - -The House proceeded to fill up the remaining blanks in the bill to -establish the Post Office and Post Roads of the United States; which was -then read a third time and passed. - -_Petition of Catharine Greene._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the -Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the petition of Catharine -Greene, relict of the late General Greene. - -The object of the petition is to obtain an indemnification from the -United States against certain engagements which were entered into by her -husband, the deceased Major General Nathaniel Greene, while commanding -officer in the Southern department; and for the circumstances on which -it is founded, refers to a representation of the 22d August, 1785, which -was then made by the said General Greene to Congress. - -The petition is accompanied by a number of vouchers, arranged in -alphabetical order by the Secretary of the Treasury in his Report; from -all which he draws the following conclusion: - - "That strong and extraordinary motives of national - gratitude for the very signal and important services - rendered by General Greene to his country, must serve to - give a keener sting to the regret, which ought ever to - attend the necessity of a strict adherence to claims of - public policy, in opposition to claims founded on useful - acts of zeal for the public service, if no means of - protecting from indigence and penury the family of that - most meritorious officer shall, upon examination, be found - admissible." - -Mr. WAYNE rose and gave his reasons for supporting the petition, as -follows: - -Mr. Chairman: It may not be improper to mention the motives that impel -me to wish a fortunate issue to the _claim_ now under consideration of -this committee, which I must also offer as an apology for the part I -have taken, or that I may eventually take, in support of the claim. From -my first interview with General Greene until the moment of his -dissolution, we always lived in the strictest habits of friendship and -confidence. He was an officer with whom I had participated in almost -every vicissitude of fortune, (in many a well-tried field,) from the -frozen waters of the North to the burning sands of the South. He was a -man whose virtues and talents I knew and revered; his noble soul would -have revolted at the idea of imposition. He never would have offered in -a _claim_ to Congress, but upon the purest principles of honor and -justice. I was a witness to the pressing necessity that _compelled_ him -to become the surety, for which indemnity is now claimed. He did what I -would have done, (as second in command,) had he been absent at that -trying crisis. The claim I _know_ to be just, and I am decidedly of -opinion that he was drawn into that security from the situation in which -he was placed by Congress, as Commander-in chief of the Southern -Department. Under these impressions, I beg leave to submit to the -consideration of this committee the resolutions now in my hand, and -doubt not of their concurrent support. - - "_Resolved, as the opinion of this Committee_, That the - estate of the late Major General Nathaniel Greene ought to - be indemnified for and on account of the engagements - entered into by that General with certain persons in the - State of South Carolina, for the purpose of obtaining - supplies for the American Army, in the year 1783, and that - ---- be granted to the Executors of the estate of the late - Major General Nathaniel Greene, for that purpose. - - "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a - bill in conformity to the foregoing resolution." - -Mr. BOUDINOT said, there was no greater friend to the memory of General -Greene than he was, nor any person more anxious to have justice done to -his widow and family; but he was apprehensive that the resolution -proposed by the worthy gentleman who had first brought forward this -subject was not drawn up in such a manner as to ensure it a passage -through both Houses of Congress. He wished, therefore, that it should be -so expressed as to prevent any tedious discussion, and at the same time -do ample justice. The Report of the Secretary of the Treasury puts the -subject on the best footing. The motives which led him to make the -contract were, first, the public good; and perhaps, secondly, to serve -his friend, Mr. Burnett, because he was his aide-de-camp, and he wished -to put him in the way of being established in business after the war; -but Mr. Burnett was never in any other way connected with General Greene -than as a young man brought up in the family, whom he wished to -patronize. - -After a few other observations, Mr. BOUDINOT moved to strike out the -preamble of the resolution proposed by Mr. WAYNE, and to adopt words -nearly in substance as follows: - - "_Resolved_, That it is becoming the dignity of Congress to - make compensation for the widow and orphans of the late - Major General Greene, who so gloriously served his country; - and that they be indemnified for the loss which his estate - is likely to sustain by his having entered into certain - bonds for supplying the Southern army with rations and - clothing, at a time when they were threatening to - disperse." - -Mr. FINDLAY observed, that on the question as it is now stated, the -committee have a choice of three alternatives; the claim may be -rejected, a pension or gratuity may be granted to the amount, or the -claim of the petition may be granted as a matter of right, upon the -footing of its own merits by a special law, as all authorized claims -which Congress grant are given. Claims for which the standing laws are -competent, do not come before us. I am in favor of the last alternative. -I am against rejecting the petition; because, as the facts are stated in -the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, General Greene putting -himself in this situation of risk was from the most public-spirited -motive; it was to support the public interest at a most important -crisis, when the well-being, if not the existence of the Southern army -was at stake, as well as the security of the inhabitants. If a -commander-in-chief of an army may be ruined in his private affairs by -making an unauthorized exertion to save his army or his country, the -precedent may be dangerous; it may teach commanders lessons of prudence, -which may have ruinous effects. It is true the necessity of the case -must be such as will justify the unauthorized measure: from the Report, -this appears to have been the case in the subject of the present debate. -From the whole state of the facts before us, General Greene appears not -to have had his own interest in view in this transaction, if the proof -of this only lay between Banks and him. The established character of -General Greene, not only as an officer, but as a man of integrity and -public spirit, certainly cannot sink when laid in the balance with the -secret insinuation of an unprincipled speculator. Such has been my own -opinion of General Greene's character, that I would certainly require -other proofs than this before I would even indulge suspicions: but it -does not rest upon this. We have Banks's own testimony to the contrary, -and his partner, and we know it would have been the interest of Banks & -Co. to have made the contrary appear: nay, we have such a cloud of -witnesses, all concurring to the same point, as appears sufficient to -remove doubts from the most scrupulous mind. Unauthorized accounts are -admitted in settlements between the United States and the individual -States, upon the principles of equity. I consider this as a case of the -same nature, and will vote for it agreeably to this precedent. I -consider granting the prayer of the petition in this manner, as an act -of justice, not only to his estate, but to the memory of his character. -But I object to granting the relief in the indirect way of a pension; it -is not so safe to the public, nor so honorable to the heirs of General -Greene. To the public it is highly dangerous as a precedent; it will -operate as an opening wedge to other claims without limitation. Few -indeed can have an unauthorized though just claim as commanders-in-chief -of an army reduced to such a dilemma as originated the present question; -but merit and distress are not confined to commanders alone; they are to -be found in every rank of citizens. The struggles during the late -revolution produced abundance of merit; we cannot look around in this -House, nor in any large collection of citizens, but our eye meets with -those who have claims of merit. We can scarcely be acquainted in any -neighborhood, but we must be acquainted with such as have been reduced -to distress by their meritorious exertions, either in the camp, in the -cabinet, or by granting supplies. How many who have aided the public -with their substance, have been obliged to part with the evidences of -their meritorious claims for a temporary relief. Many of the aged, many -widows and orphans, to my knowledge, labor in penury, and mourn in -secret, on the account of such meritorious aids not being recompensed -when they ought to have been; though this was owing to the public -misfortune, yet the merit and sufferings were not the less. I am very -sensible of the great merit of General Greene; it is so well known, and -so generally acknowledged, on all hands, as to render it improper for me -to enlarge thereon. But, superior as his merit was, if we grant a -pension or relief not founded on a just claim, merit of a lower order -must be also admitted: there is no distinguishing the shades. I have -heard of claims on the footing of merit brought before Congress, -supported by such arguments as would induce a stranger to think that -nearly all the merit of accomplishing the revolution was centred in the -claimant. If merit is to be rewarded by pensions, we shall soon have -claimants in abundance. In the exercise of supreme command, difficulties -often arise which render exertions necessary for which general rules -cannot be provided; these have been generally treated as objects of -indemnification. Many claims are now before Congress; they are various -in their nature, and no doubt a number of them will be admitted; but -from every view I have taken of the claim before us, I think the present -as strongly addresses our justice and sympathy as any of them. - -Mr. WAYNE thought it necessary to make some observations on what had -fallen from the gentleman on his right, (Mr. BOUDINOT.) In order to -place this subject in a proper point of view, he begged leave to mention -certain circumstances previous to the evacuation of Charleston. Some of -the first characters in South Carolina obtained a flag from General -Greene, to meet a deputation of merchants and others under a flag from -the British lines. Those merchants were anxious to remain after the -army, for the purpose of disposing of their stock in trade, and wished -for a reasonable time to transact that business; this indulgence was -readily granted, for it was thought an object of consequence to retain -supplies for the use of the country as well as for the army; and they -were permitted to continue in the place for the space of _twelve months_ -after the abandonment should take effect. Assurances were also given -them for the inviolable protection of their persons and property for -that period. Thus sanctioned, they were probably induced to speculate -upon such stores as the British army could spare, (for that army was -redundantly supplied,) whilst the Americans were experiencing almost -every possible distress for want of the common necessaries of life. -About this time hopes were entertained of the speedy appearance of a -superior marine force from the French West Indies, to that of the -British; and the operating army under my command was advanced to the -quarter-house, in a position to prevent the enemy from embarking with -impunity, and to protect the town and its inhabitants from depredation -and insult. This manoeuvre had the desired effect; it created a -jealousy in the British General for the safety of his rear, and General -Leslie was, in a manner, compelled to come into a convention, more -resembling a _capitulation_ than an _abandonment_, for he was under the -necessity to "agree not to commit any insult upon the inhabitants, or -depredation upon their property, or damage to the city, at or _after_ -his embarkation." The word _after_ caused some demur; but it was -insisted upon and complied with, in consequence of the orders I had -previously received from General Greene; a measure which at once -afforded security to the inhabitants, and a flattering prospect of full -supplies, as well for the citizens as for the army. - -The gentleman (Mr. BOUDINOT) says--How are we to distinguish between the -articles and necessaries that were actually made use of by the army, and -of the other goods purchased of the British merchants? This may be fully -answered and explained by mentioning this fact: that those merchants -took advantage of their situation, and would not dispose of any article -suitable for the army unless _their whole stock were purchased -together_; having but twelve months to dispose of their goods and -collect their debts. Nor could the necessary articles be obtained at the -point of the bayonet, as the merchants were protected by a compact made -under the sanction of a flag. Nor would they trust the contractor -_Banks_ with their property, unless General Greene became his security; -by which act, in their opinion, the _United States_ would be bound in -honor to fulfil a contract made by their commanding officer; nor did -General Greene come into the measure until compelled by dire necessity, -to prevent a mutiny and dissolution of the army. And such was the -exhausted situation of the country in the vicinity of Charleston, that -the Executive and the Legislature found it expedient to send a distance -into the country to obtain supplies for themselves and the refugee -families who were returning to the city after the evacuation: in fact, -we were under the necessity of taking part of these very provisions, to -prevent an instantaneous revolt. - -But the gentleman (Mr. BOUDINOT) says that General Greene's private -friendship for Major Burnett, who had been his aide-de-camp, was a -peculiar inducement for his entering into that security, and that Major -Burnett had mortgaged an island to General Greene as a collateral -security. This, indeed, was an act of private friendship; but it was a -subsequent transaction, and noways connected with the former, nor is it -amongst the charges. This was a private purchase by Major Burnett from -Mr. John M'Queen, a gentleman well known in South Carolina; and it was -thought to be a very advantageous purchase for Major Burnett at the time -it was made, (although it has turned out otherwise,) but it was -necessary for him to obtain security, previous to receiving _titles_. He -applied to General Greene to become his security upon that occasion, -which was complied with; and in that act he certainly displayed a -superior degree of private friendship, and such as has already been -found extremely injurious to his family; but it is by no means connected -with the claim now under consideration. - -The danger of establishing a precedent in future, unsupported by -previous authority obtained from Congress, is also mentioned as an -objection. Mr. Chairman, there never can be any danger of drawing this -circumstance into precedent; for the page of history never did before, -nor I believe ever will again, produce a similar precedent, _i. e._ an -army facing and surmounting every difficulty and danger through a long -and bloody contest, badly clothed and worse paid, and frequently -destitute of the common necessaries of life. Sir, it is for the honor of -General Greene that we contend; and I am warranted in asserting, that he -was not interested in the contract of Mr. Banks, otherwise than from the -pure and virtuous motives of serving and saving his country. I therefore -feel myself interested, and bound in honor to support and defend the -character of my departed friend, and to demand this claim as a matter of -_right_, and not of _grace_; and I have a confidence that the candor and -justice of this committee will induce them to adopt the principles of -the resolutions submitted to their consideration. - -Mr. SUMTER.--With respect to the resolution as it now stands, I feel -myself obliged to oppose it. Nothing that has fallen from the gentleman -over the way (Mr. WAYNE) has convinced me that the measure is proper or -just. It is necessary to be cautious in the manner of discussing a -matter of so much delicacy. I rise, not to make any pointed objections -that can in any degree injure the reputation of the officer, whose -abilities I respect, or to hurt the feelings of his family or -connections. I suppose that no gentleman will decide in favor of the -resolution without examining the merits of the case. The committee will -have that information which they shall deem to be requisite on the -occasion. I am sorry to differ in opinion with the gentleman from -Georgia, and am therefore disposed to make sacrifices of my own feelings -of past injuries, and will not suffer them to warp my judgment, but will -endeavor to decide in conformity with the opinions of the people of the -State of South Carolina, and in particular of the district which I have -the honor to represent. In going into the investigation of this matter, -I will give my reasons why I do not think the country, although in -extreme distress, was in that deplorable situation which has been -represented; neither was its credit reduced so low but that relief might -have been obtained, and that so small an army might have been -accommodated, had a proper application been made in time to the -Government. The gentleman must therefore be mistaken in stating those -circumstances; for if the proper documents be examined, it will appear -that the army received very ample supplies from the same source, some -months previous to the contract made by Mr. Banks, which must have been -in November, or early in December, and previous to the evacuation of -Charleston. Whether it was better to adopt the means used by General -Greene, or those within the power of the Government, I shall not pretend -to determine; but I have no doubt that the Government possessed both the -means and the inclination to find supplies. The contract was first made -by Banks in November or December, and General Greene did not become the -guarantee until the April following; whether there were any reasons for -preferring this mode to that of an application to Government, will -perhaps appear in the course of the investigation. - -Mr. Chairman, this contract has been considered to have operated rather -as a misfortune, although it may have afforded a temporary relief; it -was the occasion of much complaint, vexation, and distrust, rather than -of conciliation; and that this discontent ran through the army is within -the knowledge of several officers whose names could be mentioned. It is -therefore necessary to bring the matter into the full view of the -committee, and to have recourse to the files of the public offices, -before we agree to the resolution on the table. At the same time, it is -my sincere wish to render justice to the family of the deceased in every -reasonable accommodation; but it does not appear to me that the family -is reduced to that disagreeable situation which has been represented. -The large grants that have been made by the States of Georgia, North and -South Carolina, are still in the possession of the heirs of the -deceased, and I have been informed that a gentleman offered $30,000 for -that granted by North Carolina, so late as last summer; neither have I -heard that any distress has been levied upon any of these estates, or -that they are so much affected, in reality, but that the claims made -against them are rather of a nominal and visionary nature. But admitting -that General Greene was security for the United States, and that the -operation had been beneficial, (which I deny;) does it appear that -executions have been levied to any considerable amount, or to such an -extent as to justify the present application? To me it does not appear -this has been the case, neither do I believe that the estate has been -reduced in the manner represented; and, whilst I say it, I honestly and -sincerely hope it; under which impression, I can never accede to the -resolution on the table. - -Mr. WADSWORTH.--The gentleman last up has said many things to me utterly -unintelligible, and others which directly militate with what has been -said by the gentleman from Georgia. He has, however, declared that no -real or supposed personal injury shall influence him in giving his -opinion or vote. I hope, sir, he will not now feel or resent those real -or supposed injuries. I do believe they are not real; and from my long -and intimate acquaintance with General Greene, I had good opportunity to -know him; a better man I never did know. That he had enemies is not to -be wondered at; the nature of his command to the southward was -important, critical, and difficult, and he might be constrained to do -things that necessity only would justify. If he has injured any man, he -has atoned for it; neither the tongue nor pen of malice have been able -to affix a stigma on his character. If I ever knew a man whose heart was -pure and without guile, it was General Greene. Yet he had enemies; no -man deserved them so little. More honest fame is due to no man. And if -his fortune is to be sacrificed, and his family beggared, it is a -consolation that his good name will last for ever. Being one of his -executors, I know something of his affairs; but it was with reluctance I -rose, as my attachments to him and concern for his family render it -extremely difficult for me to enter on the subject. The gentleman from -South Carolina has told us he is acquainted with the affairs of the -estates in the Carolinas, and has said they are without any executions -against them, the bonds on good credit, and the family in no danger of -poverty, &c. I can hardly allow, sir, that he is acquainted with the -affairs of General Greene, even in South Carolina and Georgia; but if he -is, I will ask him if he does not know that all the negroes from the -South Carolina estate are sold, and that the land is totally -unproductive? that Mr. Rutledge has prevented executions from taking the -Georgia estate by his personal interference? that all the estates in -Rhode Island and New Jersey are sold? and that the hope of the justice -we now ask for has delayed the sale of all the rest, to satisfy his -creditors--his Southern creditors? - -The proofs and documents alluded to by the gentleman (Mr. SUMTER) have -been before Congress for several years, and the friends and executors of -General Greene have challenged his enemies, in every part of the Union, -to disprove them; and I hope no delay will now take place. The subject -is fully before Congress. I hope justice will be done to the widow and -orphans of the late General Greene, and that the investigation will now -be finished, his honest fame vindicated and established, and his family -saved from the ruin that awaits them. - -Mr. HARTLEY, in support of Mr. WAYNE's motion, observed, that he had -paid some attention to the report and the documents referred to in it, -as well as the objections made to the resolutions under consideration. -Many of the objections, said he, have been answered by gentlemen who -were nearer to the scene of action than myself; I shall strive to -obviate others. The mode of conducting our affairs in South Carolina -does not seem to have been agreeable to the gentleman opposite to me -from that State, (Mr. SUMTER,) and he expresses his high disapprobation -of many parts of it. When I disagree with that gentleman, I do it with -great reluctance; for no one on this floor has a greater respect for him -than myself. In a hazardous and difficult situation, or in carrying on -war, or even in great political questions, the best friends may differ -in the mode of conducting them; and it has too frequently happened, that -such difference has tended to lessen the friendship which formerly -existed. Upon the whole, our arms to the southward were crowned with -success; we must presume the means generally used were right. If -supplies could have been furnished by the State of South Carolina, it is -a pity they were not granted. I say, it is possible General Greene might -have pursued a different mode to obtain clothing and provisions. He did -not. He was of opinion no other plans could have been successfully -followed but those which were adopted. The idea of his being a partner -with Banks & Co., seems to be given up by the opposition. The mere -insinuation of Mr. Banks and some others can have no influence against -such a cloud of evidence and documents. These are so strong for the -General, that they would work conviction on the greatest infidel. I -shall barely advert to a part of them, as mentioned in the report, and -on this head give a few observations of my own. And, first, the -application to the Legislature of South Carolina, in order to create a -competition: Had he been concerned as a partner, or intended to be so, -no competition through that channel would have been proposed. If he was -to be a partner, the more secret the transaction, the higher the -advantage. The bond of indemnity to General Greene, oaths of Banks and -Hunter, certificate from Major Forsyth, Nathaniel Pendleton's oath, -Charles C. Pinckney's oath, (now Governor of South Carolina,) and the -certificates of the two Chancellors of South Carolina, who were both -high in the Executive, when these transactions should have happened. -Besides, sir, if we consider how many partners there were concerned with -Banks in the different transactions, had General Greene been one of the -company, it must long since have been manifested to the world. The -secret could not have been kept; nor can we possibly think that General -Greene, who was undoubtedly a man of understanding, would have expressed -himself in the manner he has done, in the close of his letter from -Newport, dated the 24th of August, 1785, had he been a partner. He says -there, "Thus have I given your Excellency a short narration of the -origin and situation of this matter, and have only to add on this -subject, that I never held any commercial connection with the company, -other than what concerned the public, either directly or indirectly, or -ever received one farthing profit or emolument, or the promise of any -one from them; and my bond of indemnity expressly declares that I have -no interest, connection, or concern, in the debts for which I became -bound, all which I am willing to verify on oath." Would he have pledged -his honor, his reputation, had he been interested? No, it is impossible! -He would have been silent had he been a culprit, and not have challenged -the world, as the power of detection would have laid with so many, and -the shaft of envy always ready. I hope every man must be satisfied that -the General was no partner. - -The great points of contest before the committee seem now to be-- - -1st. Did the General enter into these engagements out of personal regard -to individuals, without a view to the public interest? - -2dly. Was not the good of the public his principal object? - -3dly. Under all circumstances, should not his estate be indemnified? - -As to the first, I cannot think that the General, out of mere personal -regard to individuals, without a view to the public good, would have -been bail. He had been esteemed a man of prudence, and was not a person -of large fortune. How would he embarrass his family and property in such -engagements? Who, under mere motives of friendship, would have done so? -The sum was too large; he had no interest. He got no goods or money for -himself. He might have had a favorable opinion of some of the company, -but his responsibility was become necessary with a view to the public -good. - -As to the second, public good must have been his principal object. The -contracts before made would not have been carried into execution, -without the aid of the contract, for which the indemnity was made in -April, 1783. A great many articles were absolutely necessary to the -army; they were connected with others; the necessaries could not at that -critical period, or for the moment, be obtained elsewhere. The -merchants, as I understand, insisted upon two conditions before they -would deliver the goods: 1st, that all the goods should go together; 2d, -that the commanding officer should become security. There was a -necessity for an additional capital to furnish the means for supporting -the army; and as most of the goods were useful and necessary, the -residue might be disposed of to the best advantage, and the money -arising from them be applied to the payment of the debt. Public -necessity and the state of things would oblige the General to agree to -the first condition. The compliance with the second condition became a -necessary consequence. The General's letter from Newport, and General -Wayne's oath, Nathaniel Pendleton's oath, and other evidence, prove the -situation of the army. As to the third point, should not his estate be -indemnified? Through his zeal for the public good, he has unfortunately -involved his estate in difficulty. Whatever the conduct of the company -might be, the creditors were not to be affected either by the fraud or -failure of Banks and the purchasers. General Greene was liable. The -General, when he hears of misconduct, does all he can to save and -indemnify himself, and through him the United States. Securities were -taken in as ample a manner as they could he obtained from the -delinquents; and General Greene never wished to call upon the public, -until every other means failed. So late as the year 1785 he had still -hopes there would be no loss; but when he found the danger, a sense of -duty obliged him to come forward to save himself and family, to ask the -protection of the public to indemnify him from a debt that he had -contracted to save an army from mutiny and disbanding; to protect a -country which otherwise would have been exposed. Many exertions had he -to make to feed the hungry and cover the naked; were not these for the -public good, and shall his private property suffer? Shall his family be -reduced to beggary, be stripped of their all, to discharge what the -United States are in honor and in justice bound to pay? - -Retrospective laws, to affect rights attacked, ought never to pass; but -laws have frequently been enacted to indemnify persons for a conduct, -though not strictly legal, yet founded on the special circumstances of -the case--the safety or honor of a nation or army, where the -constitutional authority could not come forward in time. Such was the -treaty or system formed by the Duke of Marlborough and the great De -Witt. The Dutch, instead of punishing their minister, approved the -measure; it eventually tended to the safety and honor of the allies. The -individual who undertakes risks for his country's good, a magnanimous -Government will always sanctify. We should consider the case upon -substantial principles, not according to the letter, not act as the -Lacedæmonians did to one of their leaders; they fined him for the -infringement of the letter of the law, yet for the same act rewarded the -hero with a garland. The fine here ruins the General's estate, and the -garland alone, I fear, in this country, will not give his children bread -or a becoming education. - -In our late contest, the common maxims of old nations could not always -be adhered to. We were obliged to act according to emergencies. In the -case of General Greene, he seems to have intended for the best. He -helped to serve and save a country. His merit stands high indeed. I need -not repeat the number of his great and glorious actions, which mark him -the General and the hero. His name will be handed down with honor to -succeeding ages. - -Under all circumstances, I think his estate should be indemnified. If -the committee do not like the whole of the resolution, let there be a -division, as proposed by one of the gentlemen from South Carolina; -though I should think we might safely vote for the whole of the -resolution, and let the bill make any other provisions which it may be -thought necessary. - -Mr. LEE, Mr. BARNWELL, Mr. WAYNE, and Mr. BOURNE, R. I., spoke in favor -of agreeing to the resolutions, and Mr. MACON and Mr. STURGES against -the motion. Mr. SUMTER closed the debate in sundry remarks on extracts -from letters wrote by General Greene during the late war, inserted in -Gordon's History of the American Revolution, which extracts contain -unfavorable reflections on the militia of South Carolina, and the -patriotism of the inhabitants of that State. These reflections, Mr. -SUMTER said, were gross calumnies on, and misrepresentations of the -character of that people, which he said were invalidated by facts that -at that time took place, and by the general tenor of the conduct of -South Carolina throughout the whole course of the war. - - -MONDAY, January 23. - -_Petition of Catharine Greene._ - -The order of the day being called for, on the report of the Secretary of -the Treasury on the petition of Catharine Greene, several members -objected to taking up this subject, being of a private nature, while -matters of the greatest public importance demand the immediate attention -of Congress. The question being taken, the motion for going into -Committee of the Whole was carried, 21 to 16; and Mr. LIVERMORE took the -chair. - -After considerable debate, the question was put for agreeing to the -first resolution, in the following words: - - _Resolved_, as the opinion of this committee, That the - estate of the late Major General Greene ought to be - indemnified for the engagements entered into by that - General, with certain persons in the State of South - Carolina, for the purpose of obtaining supplies for the - Army of the United States, under his command, in the year - 1783. - -Which was negatived, 28 to 25. - -The committee then rose, and the Chairman reported that the Committee of -the whole House had had under consideration a report of the Secretary of -the Treasury on the petition of Catharine Greene, and had come to no -resolution thereon. - -Mr. MACON then moved that the Committee of the Whole should be -discharged from any further proceedings on the subject; which motion was -agreed to. - -Mr. BOURNE then laid on the table a resolution for referring the -Secretary's Report, together with Mrs. Greene's petition, and the -vouchers accompanying it, to a select committee, with instruction to -inquire into the facts which rendered it necessary for General Greene to -become security to Banks & Co., and the nature, circumstances, and -amount of the original debt, and the obligation entered into by General -Greene for payment thereof; with an account of the moneys or collateral -security received by the obligees, or by General Greene in his lifetime, -or his representatives since his death, in part thereof; and the -eventual loss which his estate will sustain in consequence of the said -securities; and after examining all the circumstances and such further -evidence as may be offered relative to the transaction, to report their -opinion thereon to the House. - - -THURSDAY, January 26. - -An engrossed bill to ascertain and regulate the claims to half-pay and -to invalid pensions was read the third time and passed. - -_Protection of the Frontiers._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -bill for making further and more effectual provision for the Protection -of the Frontiers of the United States. - -A motion being made to strike out the second section of the bill, which -contemplates the raising of three additional regiments of infantry and a -squadron of light dragoons, amounting in all to three thousand and forty -men, exclusive of commissioned officers-- - -It was urged in favor of the motion, that the Indian war, in which the -United States are at present involved, was, in its origin, as unjustly -undertaken as it has since been unwisely and unsuccessfully conducted; -that depredations had been committed by the whites as well as by the -Indians; and the whites were most probably the aggressors, as they -frequently made encroachments on the Indian lands, whereas the Indians -showed no inclination to obtain possession of our territory, or even to -make temporary invasions, until urged to it by a sense of their wrongs. -A proof of this unencroaching disposition on their part plainly appeared -in their conduct, after the victory they lately obtained over our -troops; for, when flushed with success, they might have swept the -country before them, and penetrated as far as Pittsburg, they contented -themselves with the advantage they had gained over their invaders, and -did not attempt to invade our territories in return, although there was -nowhere at hand a sufficient force to check their career. - -The mode of treating the Indians in general was reprobated as unwise and -impolitic. The Indians are with difficulty to be reduced by the sword, -but may easily be gained by justice and moderation;[41] and, although -their cruelties are alleged as reasons for a different conduct, and the -sufferings of the white people pathetically deplored, these narratives, -it was said, are at best but _ex parte_ evidence--we hear nothing of the -sufferings of the Indians--but if Cornplanter's speech were read, it -would set the matter in a very different point of view, and furnish a -complete answer to all the charges of their accusers. - -Peace, it was said, may be obtained from the Indian tribes at a much -less expense than would be necessary for the support of the war. To -persevere in hostilities would be wasting the public money to a very bad -purpose indeed; for, supposing our arms crowned with victory, what are -the advantages we may expect to reap from our success? We can only gain -possession of their lands--a possession that must long continue -unproductive of the smallest benefit, as we already possess land -sufficient--more, in fact, than we will be able to cultivate for a -century to come. - -Instead of being ambitious to extend our boundaries, it would answer a -much better national purpose to check the roving disposition of the -frontier settlers, and prevent them from too suddenly extending -themselves to the Western waters. If kept closer together, and more -nearly connected with the old settlements, they would be more useful to -the community at large, and would not so frequently involve us in -unnecessary and expensive wars with the Indians; but if permitted to -rove at pleasure, they will keep the nation embroiled in perpetual -warfare as long as the Indians have a single acre of ground to rest -upon. - -If the citizens of the United States were recalled within their proper -boundaries, there they might, for years to come, cultivate the soil in -peace, neither invaded nor invading. As the country progresses in -population, and our limits are found too narrow, it will then be soon -enough to contemplate a gradual extension of our frontier; but, in the -mean time, it is an idle profusion of blood and treasure to carry war -beyond our present line of forts. It is only exposing our arms to -disgrace, betraying our own weakness, and lessening the public -confidence in the General Government, to send forth armies to be -butchered in the forests, while we suffer the British to keep possession -of the posts within our territory. - -As long as Britain is suffered to retain these posts, we can never hope -to succeed against the Indians; nor ought we to trace our late -misfortune to any other source than her still holding them in her -possession. Were they in our hands, the Indians could not carry on their -operations against us with the same degree of vigor as they now do; for -it is from those forts that they obtain their supplies of arms and -ammunition, with which they can be at all times plentifully furnished, -as long as things continue on their present footing. - -Until those posts are in our possession, it will be in vain to send our -armies into the wilderness. A body of five thousand men, sent out -against the Indians, under the present circumstances, would be as -effectually defeated as the smaller ones have already been. In those -wilds, our troops have no friend at hand to furnish them with supplies, -or to give them intelligence of the approach and operations of the -enemy; whereas, the Indians, receiving both aid and information from -their friendly neighbors, can preconcert their plans, and choose, -according to their own convenience, the place and the hour of attack, as -they did before. - -It was here observed, by an honorable gentleman on the other side of the -question, that we ought undoubtedly to get possession of those posts; -and that we might have long since obtained it, if we had only laid a -seasonable embargo on all the British shipping in our ports; though he -doubted whether it would at present be worth while to take such a step, -as the English have lost so great a portion of our carrying trade, in -consequence of the additional tonnage laid on their vessels. - -In favor of the motion, it was further urged, that, supposing even the -war to have been originally undertaken with justice on our -side--supposing, also, that the national honor and interest called for a -continuance of hostilities--yet, as it was by no means either necessary -or prudent to invade the Indian territory, as this had been attempted in -two successive campaigns, and the event had, in both instances, been -such as to afford no very flattering prospect from a third expedition of -the same kind, it was thought much more advisable to content ourselves -with defending the frontier; and this might be done without making so -great an augmentation in the military establishment. - -The only use of regular troops on the frontier is to garrison the forts, -and to have a standing force in the neighborhood to form a station, to -which the militia may resort either for protection or supplies; but as -to active service, the frontier militia and rangers were pronounced to -be by far preferable to the regular troops, as being more expert -woodsmen, and better habituated to the Indian mode of fighting. To -defend the forts, a small number of regulars would be sufficient. The -present establishment of two regiments would, if completed, be amply -adequate to the purpose, and, when assisted by such forces as might at -all times be collected on the frontier, would be able to repel every -inroad of the enemy. - -Experience has proved that the sudden and desultory attacks of the -frontier militia and rangers are ever attended with better success than -the methodical operations of a regular force. The former are better -calculated for expedition and surprise, making unexpected sallies, -scouring the country in small bodies, harassing the Indians, and -intercepting their straggling parties, by whom their motions are -unobserved; whereas, when a body of regulars take the field, encumbered -with baggage and heavy artillery, the unavoidable slowness of their -movements affords the enemy an opportunity of watching all their -operations, collecting their whole force, and skulking in the woods -around them till they can seize the favorable moment to strike a sudden -blow, which they generally do with success, but which they could never -attempt if exposed every hour to the unforeseen attacks of our woodsmen, -who would keep their attention constantly engaged in all quarters, and -thus prevent them from uniting in large bodies. - -It was further observed by some gentlemen, who even admitted the -propriety of invading the Indian territory, that, to effect this with -success, it was by no means necessary to make such an increase in the -military establishment as that contemplated in the bill. The miscarriage -of the former expeditions could not (they said) be alleged as a -sufficient reason; for it is well known that the former establishment -was far from being complete. The regulars intended for the service of -the last campaign were to have been above two thousand two hundred; the -President was, besides, empowered to raise two thousand five hundred -levies, in addition to the regulars; and these would, together, have -constituted an army of about four thousand seven hundred men. Had such a -body been employed, we might reasonably have expected much better -success against the Indians, whose numbers were so far inferior; the -whole force of the Wabash tribes not amounting to above eleven or twelve -hundred warriors, who never could keep the field for any length of time, -but must be soon obliged to disperse, without venturing an attack upon -an army of such superior strength. - -Instead of this, our army consisted of only about twelve hundred men, -and of these not above four or five hundred were regular troops; -besides, had even this force been sufficient, if employed in season, the -delays that had taken place in the execution of the plan would alone -have been sufficient to defeat the intended purpose. During the winter, -the law was passed for raising the additional troops for carrying on the -war with greater vigor. The whole summer was spent in the business, and -the few men that we did enlist were not raised till late in the fall. -Collected at length at the head of the Ohio, they fruitlessly loitered -away their time, till they finally erected a monument to our eternal -disgrace and infamy. - -Whatever troops are to be employed, ought to be raised with diligence -and despatch, if we wish to avoid a similar miscarriage in our next -attempt. The army ought not to enter the Indian country till their whole -force is complete. Difficulties, however, and delay, equal to those of -last year, may be expected in enlisting the men; and we shall have the -officers in pay a considerable time without any soldiers. Perhaps the -former pay of the troops was too low, and proper effective men were -unwilling to accept of it; if so, let it be raised, let the men be well -clothed and fed, and they will more readily engage in the service. -Probably, also, the term of three years was an objection with many, who -would otherwise have joined our standard. If enlisted only for six -months, the ranks will be sooner filled; and this ought to have -considerable weight with those who advocate the augmentation of the -military establishment, as they cannot but know that, if we set about -enlisting the number of men contemplated in the bill, and in the manner -there prescribed, they cannot be raised time enough to render any -service in the next campaign. - -The information contained in the report on the table was not, it was -said, to be implicitly relied on. That report was made by a man who had -not personally visited the frontier. Others, who had been on the spot, -were of opinion that, if two thousand levies had been raised last year, -they would have been sufficient, not only for the defence of the -frontier, but even for any offensive operations that might have been -thought necessary. Such troops, collected in the vicinity, are more -competent to the undertaking than the troops now in contemplation. No -complaint had been made of their conduct. Whenever they were tried, they -behaved as well as the regulars, and, in the action under General St. -Clair, they gave equal proofs of their valor. - -It was further urged, that the frontier militia are not only equal, but -infinitely superior to any regular troops whatever, for the defence of -the borders, and that they are, in fact, the only force that can be -effectually employed in expeditions against the hostile Indians, whose -mode of fighting is familiar to them, and does not strike them with that -degree of terror with which it inspires those men who enlist on the -regular establishment. These latter being collected in the heart of -populous cities, where the face of an Indian is seldom seen, hardly know -whether the Indian and his horse are not the same animal. And when they -approach the enemy, at the very first shout, even before he is in view, -they are terrified at the idea of savage barbarity, which they have ever -been taught to reflect on with horror, and, being incapable of -resistance, they commit their safety to flight. To prove the superiority -of the militia, gentlemen need only contrast the despatch and success of -the expedition conducted by General Scott, with the delays, disgrace, -and mortification, which attended that under General St. Clair, and -consider the difference of the expense on those two occasions. - -The expense of such an army as the bill contemplates is an object well -worthy of serious consideration, especially at the present moment, when -there is scarcely a dollar in the Treasury. Gentlemen would also do well -to advert to the progress of this business, and consider where they were -likely to stop, if they went on at the present rate. At first, only a -single regiment had been raised, and the expense was about $100,000; a -second was afterwards added, which swelled the expense to about -$300,000; and now a standing force of 5,168 men is contemplated, at an -annual expense of above a million and a quarter of dollars. Can this be -justified in the present state of our finances, when it is well known -that the Secretary of the Treasury, having been requested by the members -from a particular State to build a light-house on a part of their coast, -declined the undertaking, and alleged the want of funds as the reason? - -Our resources, however, might be made to answer for the support of such -a force as that which was intended for the service of the preceding -year, and there would be little complaint or dissatisfaction among the -people. Very few murmurings were heard against the former establishment; -but such a one as is now contemplated will be thought extravagant, will -breed discontent among the citizens of the United States, and perhaps -afford our neighbors in Canada an opportunity to take advantage of our -divided situation, and involve us in a war more dangerous than the -former which separated us from Great Britain. - -Apprehensions, it is said, are entertained that the object contemplated -in raising these additional troops is not so much to punish and coerce -the Indians, as to have a standing regular force equal to what the -British have on this continent. This is said to amount to about six -thousand men, including those in Canada. But it is to be remarked, that -the British nation has not above _one thousand_ men within the limits of -the United States; and yet, with this handful of troops, they not only -keep the Indians in awe, but even, in opposition to the wishes of the -United States, retain possession of those posts which should have been -ceded to us pursuant to the terms of the treaty. Why, then, is it -necessary, for the purpose of establishing posts and garrisoning them, -to increase the standing force to so large a number as that contemplated -in the clause under consideration? During our late arduous struggle for -liberty, when we had to cope with the most powerful nation under heaven, -the commander-in-chief had never at any one time above ten thousand men -under his own immediate command; and if, with so small a force, we were -able to effect so glorious a revolution, there can be no necessity of -going such lengths at present, for the sake of establishing a military -character. It is strange policy, indeed, to raise five or six thousand -men to oppose a handful of Indian banditti, whose utmost amount does -not, from the documents on the table, appear to exceed twelve hundred. - -We are preparing to squander away money by millions; and no one, except -those who are in the secrets of the Cabinet, knows for what reason the -war has been thus carried on for three years. But what funds are to -defray the increased expense of maintaining such a force as is now -contemplated? The excise is both unpopular and unproductive. The impost -duties have been raised as high as is consistent with prudence. To -increase them, would be but to open a door for smuggling, and thus -diminish their productiveness. And if those sources of revenue fail--if -our finances be thus exhausted in unnecessary wars--we shall be unable -to satisfy, the public creditors, unless recourse be had to new taxes, -the consequence of which may, with just reason, be deplored; whereas, if -we but keep our expenses within bounds--if we nurse our finances--we -shall be respectable among the nations of the earth, nor will any nation -dare to insult us, or be able to do it with impunity. - -During the course of these observations, an honorable gentleman asked, -whether this was a day set apart for rhetorical flourishes, as the -galleries were open, and he saw the short-hand writers stationed at -their different posts? - -At an early stage of the debate, an honorable gentleman had suggested, -that, instead of passing a law for raising at all events the additional -regiments, which, for his part, he did not think necessary, the House, -if they finally determined the present establishment to be insufficient, -would perhaps do better to appropriate a certain sum of money, to enable -the Executive to call in such additional aid as circumstances may -require. - -To this it was objected, that it is the duty of the Representatives of -the people, in all appropriations of the public money, to make them for -certain specific purposes. To act otherwise on the present occasion -would be setting a precedent that might, in its consequences, prove -highly injurious; for, although the greatest confidence may safely be -reposed in the virtue and integrity of him who now fills the -Presidential chair, it is impossible to foresee what use may hereafter -be made of the precedent by his successors, or how far it may be -carried. - -Against the motion for striking out, and in favor of the proposed -augmentation of the military establishment, it was urged: That, as to -the justice of the war carried on against the Indian tribes, that was a -question which could not admit of a doubt in the mind of any man who -would allow that self-preservation and indispensable necessity are -sufficient causes to justify a nation in taking up arms. If the present -war be not in every respect justifiable, then there never was, nor ever -will be, a just war. It was originally undertaken, and since carried on, -not for the sake of conquest, but to defend our fellow-citizens, our -friends, our dearest connections, who are daily exposed, in the frontier -settlements, to all the rage of savage barbarity, to which they, with -their wives and children, must soon fall victims, unless we speedily fly -to their assistance; and, although there are some people who utterly -deny the justice of any war whatever, this doctrine, however fine in -theory, will hardly ever obtain in practice; for, is it to be imagined, -that any set of men are of such a passive disposition as calmly to look -on whilst their friends and relations are butchered before their eyes, -and to refuse giving them every assistance in their power? - -The murders and depredations which have for years past been repeatedly -committed by the savages, loudly call for redress. From various -documents of unquestionable authority, now in the hands of the Secretary -of War, signed and attested by the Executive and Legislature of -Kentucky, by the District Judge, and the Captains of the militia, it -appears, that, from the year 1783 to 1790, there have been, of the -inhabitants of that District, or of emigrants on their way thither, no -less than fifteen hundred persons either massacred by the savages, or -dragged into captivity, two thousand horses taken away, and other -property plundered or destroyed to the amount of fifty thousand dollars. -And there is good reason to suppose that on the other frontiers of -Virginia and Pennsylvania the number of persons murdered or taken -prisoners during the above-mentioned period would furnish a list of one -thousand or fifteen hundred more. - -The white people, it is true, have sometimes committed depredations on -the Indians; but the instances have been rare (the honorable gentleman -who spoke did not recollect above one or two) of their making unjust -attacks upon the savages; nor did they, on those occasions, commence -hostilities against them till exasperated by the strongest provocations -that could possibly stimulate the human heart. This circumstance may be -justly allowed as some palliation of the offence. Even in these -instances, however, a few individuals only were concerned; and, when the -affair came to the knowledge of the State, ample reparation was made to -the injured party. The General Government, too, had shown an equal -disposition to do justice to the Indian tribes. Witness the affair of -the Cherokees; for, as soon as Congress had heard their complaints of an -encroachment made on them by some of the people from the frontier of the -Carolinas, immediate orders were issued for obliging the intruders to -evacuate the Indian territory. - -But, notwithstanding the disposition that prevails, as well in the -Legislatures of those States whose frontiers are most exposed, as in the -General Government, to cultivate peace and amity with the neighboring -Indians, that desirable object is become utterly unattainable in the -present posture of affairs. The frontier Indians have killed a number of -whites; the whites, in their turn, have made retaliation. Both parties -are in the highest degree exasperated against each other, and likely to -continue so, in spite of every endeavor that can be made to effect a -reconciliation. With minds thus irritated, it is vain to hope for peace, -as long as they continue in each other's neighborhood. It is therefore -necessary to form a strong barrier, to keep them asunder, unless, -indeed, the advocates for a cessation of hostilities would oblige the -frontier settlers to abandon their lands. But by what new-invented rule -of right should the inhabitants of Kentucky, and the other frontier -settlers, be laid under a greater obligation than any other citizens of -the United States to relinquish a property legally acquired by their -purchase? Were it even proposed to pacify the savages, by purchasing -the lands anew, such a measure would answer no other purpose than that -of procuring a temporary peace, which would soon again be interrupted by -a war that would reproduce the necessity of again having recourse to the -same expedient. We should have to purchase the lands again and again, -without end. By thus squandering the public money, year after year, we -should swell the national debt to an amount that we cannot possibly -foresee. Better at once to make a vigorous effort, to act in a manner -becoming the national dignity, and to maintain our ground by war, since -we cannot obtain a durable or an honorable peace. - -Attempts have, at various times, been made to effect treaties of peace -with the Indian tribes with whom we are now at war; and, although these -efforts have constantly proved ineffectual, they yet show, that neither -the United States nor the State of Virginia were backward on their part -to adopt conciliatory measures, and to do away that animosity which had -commenced on the part of the savages at an early period of the late war -with Great Britain, and had continued to break out at intervals ever -since. In the years, 1783, '84, '85, '87, '88, and '90, offers of peace -were made to them. On the last-mentioned occasion, when a treaty was -proposed at the Miami village, the Indians at first refused to treat. -They next required thirty days to deliberate; and, in the interim, the -inhabitants of Kentucky were expressly prohibited by the President of -the United States from carrying on any offensive operations against -them; yet, notwithstanding this forbearance on the part of the whites, -no less than one hundred and twenty persons were killed or captured by -the savages, and several prisoners roasted alive, during that short -period, at the expiration of which, the Indians refused to give any -answer at all. - -On another occasion, the Indians, not content with rejecting our offers -of peace, proceeded even so far as to insult us, by telling us we have -lands within the British posts, and asking us why we did not go and take -possession of them? Will it be said that we are unable to do it? Is this -language to be used within the United States? No! We _are_ able, -abundantly able to do it, whenever we please; and if we would but -retrench our expenses in some instances, which might well admit of a -reduction, our ability would still increase; our finances are not quite -so insufficient as some gentlemen seem to imagine, nor so easily -deranged. We are still able to prove that the boasted efficiency of the -General Government is something more than an empty name--we can yet -raise both men and money sufficient to defend the nation from either -injury or insult. - -It is now too late to inquire whether the war was originally undertaken -on the principles of justice or not. We are actually involved in it, and -cannot recede, without exposing numbers of innocent persons to be -butchered by the enemy; for, though we should determine to discontinue -the war, can it he said that the savages will also agree to a cessation -of hostilities? It is well known that they are averse to peace; and even -the warmest advocate of pacific measures must therefore allow that the -war is a war of necessity, and must be supported. We cannot, without -impeachment both to our justice and our humanity, abandon our -fellow-citizens on the frontier to the rage of their savage enemies. And -although the excise may be somewhat unpopular, although money may still -be wanted; what is the excise? what is money, when put in competition -with the lives of our friends and brethren? - -A sufficient force must be raised for their defence; and the only -question now to be considered is, what that force shall be? Experience -has proved, that the force employed in the last campaign was inadequate. -It is true the establishment was not complete; but who will venture to -assert that, if it had been complete, it would have been sufficient for -the intended purpose? Are gentlemen who assert this so well acquainted -with the circumstances of the enemy, as to be able to give an accurate -statement of the amount of their forces on the frontier? There are -stronger opinions in favor of an augmentation of the army than can be -adduced against it--opinions given by men of judgment and experience, -who have themselves been on the spot, and are well acquainted with the -situation of affairs in that quarter. These gentlemen, who must be -allowed to be competent judges, are decidedly of opinion that the -present establishment, though completed to the last man, will not -furnish an adequate force to carry on the war with effect; and that it -will be a hopeless attempt to open another campaign, with less than -about five thousand regular troops, the number contemplated in the bill. - -Nor ought that number to be deemed extravagant, under an idea that we -have only a contemptible handful of banditti to contend with. Their -numbers were, last year, from authentic documents, stated at about -twelve hundred warriors, from twenty-three different tribes: such was -the opposition then contemplated; but it is impossible to ascertain what -accessions of strength they have since received, or even what force they -had engaged in the late unfortunate action, as the very men who were in -the engagement do not pretend to form any just or accurate estimate of -the number of their assailants; but there is good reason to suppose that -they had previously entered into an association with various tribes, -that have not as yet come within our knowledge. The bows and arrows used -against our troops on that occasion, afford a convincing proof that they -had foes to encounter from distant nations, as yet unacquainted with the -use of fire-arms. Nor does the account of the bows and arrows depend, -for its authenticity, on newspaper evidence alone; gentlemen of -unquestionable veracity, who were personally engaged in the action, -have declared that they had themselves noticed the arrows flying. - -When we consider the warlike disposition of the Indians in general, and -the alacrity with which the victors are ever sure to be joined by -numerous allies, we have every reason to expect a much more formidable -opposition in the next campaign. It is well known that the savages place -all their glory in deeds of war; and that, among them, a young man -cannot make his appearance in company till he has signalized his valor -by some martial achievement. When, to this powerful incentive, a new -stimulus is added by the trophies obtained in the late action, it is -presumable that numbers will crowd to their standard; and it strongly -behooves us to prepare in time for a much more vigorous effort than any -we have yet made against them. - -The objections drawn from the increased expense, must entirely vanish -from before the eyes of any man who looks forward to the consequences of -one more unsuccessful campaign. Such a disaster would eventually involve -the nation in much greater expense than that which is now made the -ground of opposition. Better, therefore, at once to make a vigorous and -effectual exertion to bring the matter to a final issue, than to -continue gradually draining the Treasury, by dragging on the war, and -renewing hostilities from year to year. - -If we wish to bring the war to a speedy and a happy conclusion, and to -secure a permanent peace to the inhabitants on the frontier, we must -employ such troops and adopt such measures as appear best calculated to -ensure success. If we delay our determination until the force of the -enemy be ascertained, we can make no provision at all; for the nature -and circumstances of the case preclude us from the very possibility of -obtaining a knowledge of their strength and numbers. And are we, -meanwhile, to remain inactive and irresolute, and make no efforts to -repel their intended attacks? No! Whatever their numbers may be, -prudence calls aloud for provision of some kind. And if experience is to -have any weight with us, the example of the French and of the British -points out the true mode of securing our frontier, and rendering it -invulnerable to an Indian foe. Let us occupy posts in the vicinity of -the enemy, let them be properly garrisoned and well provided, and the -business is done. - -These will afford an opportunity of trading with the friendly tribes, -and will prevent all intercourse between the whites and the Indians, -except under proper regulations. Should hostilities be meditated by any -tribes who are not in amity with us, early intelligence of their -movements can be obtained; their marauding parties may either be beaten -off on their approach, or intercepted on their return; opportunities may -be taken of separately attacking the hostile tribes; their old men, -their squaws, their children, will be exposed a great part of the year, -whilst the others are out hunting. In short, if fear, hope, interest, -can be supposed to have any influence on the Indians, this mode of -defence must be allowed to be preferable to any other, as giving the -fullest scope to the operation of all those motives. - -A different mode has long been pursued in Virginia, and adopted by the -inhabitants of Kentucky, but its success has not been such as to offer -any inducement to the General Government to follow the same plan. -Rangers have there been employed for a number of years to scour the -frontiers; and those rangers, too, were expert woodsmen, perfectly -inured to the Indian mode of warfare; yet, notwithstanding their utmost -vigilance, these savages still found means to commit all the murders and -depredations already enumerated. It is true, however, that a frontier -militia man, trained up in the woods, may be, in many respects, -preferable to a regular soldier, who has not the same knowledge of the -country, and of the mode of fighting; but with equal experience, (and -proper men possessed of that experience, may be enlisted on the -establishment,) regular troops will be found infinitely superior to any -militia upon earth. - -Every man who has ever seen militia in the field, cannot but know that a -very trifling disaster, or a slight cause of discontent, is sufficient -to make them disband, and forget all subordination, so far as even to -neglect the means of self-defence; whereas regular troops, under proper -discipline, and acting with greater steadiness and concert, are much -more to be depended on, especially when the object of attack is distant, -and great fatigue is to be undergone. The militia, in whatever mode they -may be called out, will hardly furnish men of the proper description; if -large pay be offered, the temptation will equally prevail upon those who -are unfit for the service as it will upon good, effective men; besides, -some of the States have no militia laws; and, even in those States which -have such laws, they are gone into disuse; no dependence can therefore -be placed on militia under any laws now existing. There is, indeed, a -general militia law now before the House: but if it ever passes, it -certainly cannot be passed in due season to answer the purpose of -providing for the immediate defence of the frontier. Regular troops must -be raised, or nothing effectual can be done; and if to avoid the expense -we refuse the only aid that may prove of any real service, we render -ourselves responsible for the consequences of this parsimonious policy, -which may be attended with the ruin and destruction of our -fellow-citizens in the Western country. - -The Cornplanter's speech was again mentioned and called for; but, as it -had been confidentially communicated by the President, an objection was -made to having it read, without clearing the galleries. Whereupon, - -An honorable member rose, and mentioned his having read it in one of the -public newspapers in the State of New Jersey. - -To this it was answered, that if any gentleman had the newspaper to -produce, the speech might be publicly read from that; otherwise, -although it might be very proper that the speech itself should be read, -yet, as it had been confidentially received from the Executive, there -would be a manifest trespass on propriety and decorum in having it read -with open galleries; it was therefore wished that the galleries might be -cleared. - -The Parliamentary etiquette requiring that this should be done by the -House, and not by a committee, the committee rose for the purpose; and, - -The Speaker having resumed the chair, the motion for clearing the -galleries was renewed. - -An objection was here started by an honorable gentleman in favor of the -augmentation, who said that, as some gentlemen had spoken on the popular -side of the question, whilst the galleries had been open, it was unfair -to preclude those of opposite sentiments from an opportunity of -answering their arguments in the same public manner, and proving to the -people the justice and necessity of the war. - -The motion, however, was persisted in, and the galleries were -cleared.[42] - -[The speakers in this day's debate were Messrs. WAYNE, GOODHUE, -BOUDINOT, LIVERMORE, STEELE, PARKER, BOURNE, (Rhode Island,) WHITE, and -MOORE. Mr. WHITE and Mr. MOORE opposed the motion; they were in favor of -the augmentation proposed in the bill. The other gentlemen were in favor -of striking out the clause.] - - -FRIDAY, January 27. - -_Protection of the Frontiers._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the bill for making further and more effectual provision for the -protection of the frontiers of the United States. - -Mr. MERCER rose and addressed the Chair as follows: - -Mr. Chairman: I originally opposed the reference of this subject to the -Secretary of the Treasury, on principles supported by the constitution, -by the theory of free government, and from practical observation on the -progress of our own, and I believe the result now before us will fully -exemplify every evil predicted. - -Let any man examine this bill, and compare it with the terms of the -original reference. Let it then be asked, whether the submission to -devise ways and means to provide for the defence of the Western -frontier, authorized the plans proposed by the Treasury Department, that -we are now giving sanction to? Did it authorize a perpetual tax, -irrepealable by the whole Legislature, without a breach of faith, -according to received doctrine? At least, so far placing the -purse-strings in the hands of the Executive, who may refuse an assent to -the repeal; in the power of the Senate also, and consequently beyond the -reach of the Representatives of the people, who alone are deputized by, -and may be recalled by the great mass of society, and to whom the -constitution expressly confines the power of originating money bills. -Have we, in truth, originated this money bill? Do we ever originate any -money bill? If a reference, such as made to the Secretary, was proposed -to the Senate, who are a branch of the Legislature, nearly of equal -importance with ourselves, would it not be held a breach of the -constitution? Were they to propose such a plan as this to us, would it -not be received with indignation? Why so little jealousy of the -Executive Department, separated by the constitution with so much care -from us? Of the Treasury Department, too, which is considered in other -countries as possessing and exercising the means of corruption? It is in -my judgment a direct infraction of the letter and spirit of the -constitution, of the principles of free government, and I have heard no -attempt to defend it, but on the ground of pitiful evasion, more -dishonorable to ourselves and dangerous to the public, than an open -violation, that would rouse their resentment and ensure opposition. - -But did the submission of a provision to defend the frontier authorize a -system for the encouragement of manufactures, thereby placing the -occupations and productive labor of our citizens under the direction of -Government, and rendering the living of the artist and subsistence of -the farmer, so far equally dependent on and subservient to the views of -Administration? Did it authorize an entire provision for the public -debt, past, present, and to come? Did it authorize a plan for supplying -former deficiencies, which it is admitted do not exist? Lastly, did it -authorize an extensive increase of the Sinking Fund, which we are -informed is one of the principal objects? It would be an affront to -common sense to answer one of these queries in the affirmative--it -authorized none of them. And yet these are all its offspring; these are -the great objects it produced. It is true there are in the bill two or -three little clauses that were authorized, and which relate to the -submission, and which might well have escaped my attention, and would -probably never attract the observation of the public, but for the -title--a bill for the protection of the frontiers. By these clauses five -hundred and twenty-three thousand dollars of the whole moneys to be for -ever raised from its perpetual revenue, are appropriated for this year's -campaign. After that sum is expended, we must, even the next year, look -out for new taxes, and upon the same principles, as long as the Indian -war continues (and by the enlistments it is not contemplated to be of -very short duration) new taxes must be provided, for the residue of -these taxes are by this bill appropriated to other purposes, for ever, -after five hundred and twenty-three thousand dollars are paid. This -appropriation is unalterable even by the whole Legislature, unless by a -breach of public faith, or providing other equal revenue. Should every -year's Indian war, and every national disaster excuse Government for -laying a perpetual tax, equal to the increased annual demand, it will be -selling us defeats at a very high price; and if Government are paid so -well, they may be tempted to repeat the tragical representation. - -But what is the reflection that naturally arises from a contemplation of -this bill. That Administration will not even permit us to defend the -helpless women and children of the frontier from the brutal ferocity of -a savage foe, but on condition that the Representatives surrender up for -ever the sacred trust of the constitution, and place in the power and -under the control of the Executive and Senate, a perpetual tax. Unless -they throw the power of regulating the labor and industry of their -fellow-citizens into the hands of Government, and into a mean dependence -on Administration; and unless they furnish a large sum of money, under -the denomination of a Sinking Fund, for the purposes of speculation, in -order to raise and lower the price of stocks at pleasure, or as may suit -the views and interest of the band of favorites that are in the secret. - -Hard and oppressive conditions! Was this the object of the reference to -the Secretary? It was not the avowed one, nor could it have been -suspected, from a simple proposition to devise ways and means to defend -the frontier. A mighty fabric has been erected on this slight -foundation, to hurry us into its adoption. We have been officially, I -suppose, informed that the money for the War Department is almost -expended; that the preparations for the Western expedition must stop, -unless we pass the bill immediately; and thus, with the tomahawk -suspended over our heads, we must give up to Administration the dearest -interests of the people, and sacrifice the most sacred rights of the -constitution. - - -MONDAY, January 30. - -_Protection of the Frontiers._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the bill making farther and more effectual provision for the protection -of the frontiers of the United States; and, after some time spent -therein, the Chairman reported that the committee had again had the said -bill under consideration, and made several amendments thereto; when the -same being read, some were agreed to, and others disagreed to. - -And then the said bill being before the House, a motion was made, and -the question being put to amend the same, by striking out the second -section thereof, in the words following: - - "_And be it further enacted_, That there shall be raised - three additional regiments of infantry, each of which, - exclusively of the commissioned officers, shall consist of - nine hundred and twelve non-commissioned officers, - privates, and musicians:" - -It passed in the negative--yeas 18, nays 34, as follows: - - - YEAS.--John Baptist Ashe, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub - Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, - William Barry Grove, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, - Nathaniel Niles, Josiah Parker, Israel Smith, John Steele, - Thomas Sumter, George Thatcher, Artemas Ward, Hugh - Williamson, and Francis Willis. - - NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell, - Egbert Benson, John Brown, Jonathan Dayton, William - Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, William B. Giles, Andrew Gregg, - Thomas Hartley, Daniel Huger, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, - John W. Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, James - Madison, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, - William Vans Murray, John Page, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, - Joshua Seney, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan - Sturges, Peter Sylvester, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor - Tucker, Abraham Venable, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Anthony Wayne, - and Alexander White. - -The farther consideration of the said bill was then postponed until -to-morrow. - - -TUESDAY, January 31. - -The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, -covering his report on the petitions of James Swaine, Abraham Springer, -Timothy Mountford, sundry seamen, Samuel Wail, for himself and servant, -John Carnaghan, James Shields, Henry Skinner, and William Loring; which -were read, and ordered to lie on the table. - -_Protection of the Frontiers._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the bill for making farther and -more effectual provision for the protection of the frontiers of the -United States; and the same being further amended, was - -_Ordered_, To be engrossed, and read the third time to-morrow. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 1. - -Mr. PAGE, from the committee to whom was referred the petition of John -Churchman, made a report; which was read, and ordered to lie on the -table. - -_Protection of the Frontiers._ - -An engrossed bill for making farther and more effectual provision for -the protection of the frontiers of the United States, was read the -third time, and the blanks therein filled up; and on the question that -the said bill do pass, - -It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 29, nays 19. - - -FRIDAY, February 3. - -A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate recede from -their amendments, disagreed to by this House, to the bill to establish -Post Offices and Post Roads within the United States, and do agree to -the amendments proposed by the House to their amendment to the said -bill. - -_The Cod Fisheries._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -bill sent from the Senate, entitled, "An act for the encouragement of -the Bank and other Cod Fisheries, and for the regulation and government -of the fishermen employed therein." - -The first section being read as follows: - - "_Be it enacted, &c._, That the bounty, now allowed upon - the exportation of dried fish of the fisheries of the - United States, shall cease on all dried fish exported after - the tenth day of June next; and in lieu thereof, and for - the more immediate encouragement of the said fisheries, - there shall be afterwards paid, on the last day of December - annually, to the owner of every vessel or his agent, by the - collector of the district where such vessel may belong, - that shall be qualified agreeably to law, for carrying on - the Bank and other cod fisheries, and that shall actually - have been employed therein at sea, for the term of four - months at least, of the fishing season next preceding - (which season is accounted to be from the last day of - February, to the last day of November in every year) for - each and every ton of such vessel's burden, according to - her admeasurement, as licensed or enrolled; if of twenty - tons and not exceeding thirty tons, one and a half dollars, - and if above thirty tons, two and a half dollars, of which - bounty three-eighth parts shall accrue and belong to the - owner of such fishing vessel, and the other five-eighths - thereof shall be divided by him, his agent or lawful - representative, to and among the several fishermen who - shall have been employed in such vessel, during the season - aforesaid, or a part thereof, as the case may be, in such - proportions as the fish they shall respectively have taken - may bear to the whole quantity of fish taken on board such - vessel during such season. _Provided_, That the bounty, to - be allowed, and paid on any vessel for one season, shall - not exceed one hundred and seventy dollars." - -Mr. GILES expressed some doubt respecting the principle of the bill; and -for the purpose of collecting the sense of the committee on the subject, -he thought the most effectual means would be a motion to amend the bill, -by striking out the whole section. He accordingly made the motion, -observing at the same time, that he could not positively assert, whether -the reasons which determined him against the principle of the bill, were -well founded or not; that, in matters where a local preference is given, -it is necessary to accommodate; and he would be happy if his objections -could be removed. The present section of the bill appears to contain a -direct bounty on occupations; and if that be its object, it is the first -attempt as yet made by this Government to exercise such authority; and -its constitutionality struck him in a doubtful point of view; for in no -part of the constitution could he, in express terms, find a power given -to Congress to grant bounties on occupations: the power is neither -directly granted, nor (by any reasonable construction that he could -give) annexed to any other power specified in the constitution. It might -perhaps be brought in under a mode of construction already adopted by -the House, viz: that of "ways and ends," by which any power whatever -might be equally implied; but he wished ever to see some connection -between a specified power, and the means adopted for carrying it into -execution. There is a great difference between giving encouragement, and -granting a direct bounty. Congress have a right to regulate commerce; -and any advantage thereby resulting to a particular occupation connected -with commerce, comes within that authority; but when a bounty is -proposed to a particular employment or occupation, this is stepping -beyond the circle of commerce; and such a measure will affect the whole -manufacturing and agricultural system. In all cases, the revenue, to be -employed in this bounty, is drawn from all the sources of revenue in the -United States, and confined to a particular object. He was averse to -bounties in almost every shape, as derogations from the common right; -and he thought there would be no great difficulty in proving, that a -government is both unjust and oppressive in establishing exclusive -rights, monopolies, &c., without some very substantial merit in the -persons to whom they are granted; although even in that case, the -propriety of such grants is still questionable. Under a just and equal -government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment -of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is -necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only -in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive -right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; -for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred -to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the -part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the -whole product of the labor of every individual is the real property of -Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the -community by governmental discretion; such a supposition would directly -involve the idea that every individual in the community is merely a -slave and bondman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to -expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any -government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system -of tyranny. - -He entertained fewer doubts, respecting the principle, as it regards -political economy. All occupations that stand in need of bounties, -instead of increasing the real wealth of a country, rather tend to -lessen it; the real wealth of every country consisting in the active -product of useful labor employed in it. It is therefore bad policy to -encourage any occupation that would diminish, instead of increasing the -aggregate wealth of the community; and if an occupation is really -productive, and augments the general wealth, bounties are unnecessary -for its support; for when it reimburses the capital employed, and yields -a profit besides, it may be said to support itself. When it fails in -these points, any forced advantage that is given to it by the -Government, only tends to decrease the wealth of the country. The -subject, however, might be considered in a more favorable point of view: -and that is, whether the provision be essential to the defence of the -United States, and whether the bounties proposed in the bill were more -than equivalent to the portion of defence that would be procured by -them. The bill does not (in his opinion) contain that kind of -encouragement, which is essential to the national defence. Any man who -takes a view of this country, must be convinced that its real support -rises from the land, and not from the sea; and the opposite mistake must -have arisen merely from a servile imitation of the conduct of Great -Britain: the inhabitants of this country heretofore thought favorably of -her Government, and the Revolution has not yet altered their former -ideas respecting it. But the circumstances of the two countries will, on -examination, be found widely different; Britain, surrounded by the sea -on every side, finds a navy necessary to support her commerce; whilst -America, possessed of an immense territory, and having yet ample room to -cultivate that territory, has no occasion to contend by sea with any -European power: her strength and her resources are all to be found -within the United States; and if she but attends to her internal -resources, the object of national defence will be much better answered. - -Mr. G. next proceeded to consider whether that portion of the national -defence which might be derived from the fisheries, would not be -purchased at too high a price. Although the apparent intention of the -bill is only to convert the present existing drawbacks into a bounty; -yet the drawbacks being allowed only to the actual exportation of the -fish, and the bounty being granted on the tonnage of the fishing -vessels, there can be no comparative value between the drawback and the -bounty; they have no necessary relation to each other, and the latter -may exceed the former, or the former exceed the latter. He had made a -calculation, and upon the most favorable principles, grounded on the -Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State. -Here he produced a calculation, tending to show that the proposed bounty -on the tonnage of the fishing vessels, would considerably exceed the -amount of the present drawbacks. From a comparison between the bounty, -and the number of sailors employed in the fisheries, he showed what an -expense each man would be to the United States; and, after other -remarks, observed, that even Great Britain, whose whole national support -and defence depends on her navy, had found, that the men employed in the -fisheries, though so necessary for that defence, had cost her too much; -that America, whose consequence, as a nation, does not depend on a navy, -ought to take a lesson from the experience of Britain: that he did not -wish to enter into a competition with Britain and France, in supplying -the different markets with fish; that, as those nations are able to hold -out greater encouragement to their fishermen, than we can to ours, we -would, by such a competition, only exhaust the Treasury of the United -States to no purpose; and upon this principle alone, he thought there -was some reason to doubt the policy of the measure proposed in the -section under consideration, which therefore he hoped the committee -would agree to strike out, unless his objection could be obviated. - -Mr. MURRAY observed, that in order to demonstrate the propriety of the -measure, it would be incumbent on the friends of the bill, first, to -prove that the fishery trade is in a state of decay, that the stock -employed in it does not yield the ordinary profits, so as to justify the -merchants in embarking their capital in this branch of trade: that there -is a system of defence in contemplation, which the circumstances of the -country call for, and which this trade is calculated to furnish; that -other branches of trade, which do not stand in need of encouragement, -are not equally capable of furnishing seamen for the purpose: that this -particular object so peculiarly claims the attention and encouragement -of the United States, as to leave far behind every consideration of the -manufacturing interest, the agricultural, &c. All this he thought -necessary for gentlemen to prove, and to show some very strong necessity -for encouraging one particular class of men, in preference to all -others. - -Mr. GOODHUE.--It happens that the fisheries of the United States are -almost entirely confined to the State of Massachusetts; and they furnish -a considerable, a principal portion of our export trade. As we are a -part of the United States, the United States in general are interested -in the prosperity of that branch of business, so far at least as it -contributes to the national defence: it furnishes a copious nursery of -hardy seamen, and offers a never-failing source of protection to the -commerce of the United States. If we engage in a war with any European -power, those seamen will be excluded from their ordinary employment, and -must have recourse to privateering. During the late war with Great -Britain, we annoyed the enemy more in that line than in all others; and -had it not been for privateering, it would often have been impossible to -keep together our armies, who frequently, in the hour of need, were -supplied by the privateers with ammunition and clothing, of which they -were wholly destitute. All that we wish to obtain by this bill is, that -we may not be burdened with duties. An opinion has been entertained, -that no drawbacks ought to be allowed on the re-exportation of articles -imported from foreign countries; but if this opinion were to obtain in -practice, and no drawbacks were to be admitted, we must confine our -importation to articles for our own consumption. The drawback allowed by -the existing law, on the exportation of salt fish, was calculated to be -only equal to the duty beforehand paid on the quantity of salt used in -curing the fish; but the fishermen complain that, as the act now stands, -they are wholly excluded from any participation in the benefit, which -centres entirely in the coffers of the merchants. The object of the -present bill is, only to repay the same money into the hands of those -persons who are immediately concerned in catching the fish; and there -can no reasonable objection be made to such a transfer of the drawback, -as Government will not lose a single dollar by the change. The gentleman -from Virginia (Mr. GILES) talks of the unconstitutionality of granting -bounties; but no bounty is required. We only ask, in another mode, the -usual drawback for the salt used on the fish. If we can make it appear -that the bill does not contemplate any greater sums to be drawn from the -Treasury, than are already allowed, it is to be hoped that no further -opposition will be made to the measure; and that this is really the -case, can be proved by documents from the Treasury office. Here he read -a statement and calculation to prove his assertion; and to show that the -United States will probably pay one thousand dollars per annum less in -the proposed bounties on the tonnage of the fishing vessels, than they -would in the drawbacks on the exportation of the fish. The fishermen, he -continued, are now under no control; and in consequence of this want of -a proper restraint, they often take whims into their heads and quit the -vessels during the fishing season. To prevent the inconveniences of this -practice, the bill contemplates their exclusion from the bounty, unless -they enter into such contracts and regulations, as may be found -necessary for the proper and successful conducting of the business, -which, from our advantageous situation, would be entirely in our hands, -if we did not meet with such opposition and discouragement from foreign -nations, whose bounties to their own fishermen, together with the duties -laid upon our fish, would, to persons less advantageously situated than -us, amount almost to a total prohibition. - -In the Report from the Secretary of State, a drawback is contemplated of -the duties on all foreign articles, used by the seamen employed in the -fishing trade, such as coffee, rum, &c.; but we ask it on the salt -alone; nor is it asked as a bounty, but merely as a transfer from the -hand of the merchant to that of the fishermen. - -Mr. WHITE had no objection to give the trade a proper degree of -encouragement; but he did not relish the idea of granting bounties; if -any gentleman would prepare an amendment, so as to make them drawbacks -in fact, as well as in words, he would consent to the measure. - -Mr. AMES, after some introductory observations, adverted to the -necessity of fixing some point in which both sides would agree. -Disputes, he said, could not be terminated--or, more properly, they -could not be managed at all, if some first principles were not conceded. -The parties would want weapons for the controversy. - -Law is in some countries the yoke of government, which bends or breaks -the necks of the people; but, thank Heaven, in this country, it is a -man's shield--his coat of mail--his castle of safety. It is more than -his defence: it is his weapon to punish those who invade his rights--it -is the instrument which assists--it is the price that rewards his -industry. - -If I say that fishermen have equal rights with other men, every -gentleman feels in his own bosom a principle of assent. If I say that no -man shall pay a tax on sending his property out of the country, the -constitution will confirm it; for the constitution says, _no duty shall -be laid on exports_. If I say, that on exporting dried fish, the -exporter is entitled to drawback the duty paid on the salt, I say no -more than the law of the land has confirmed. Plain and short as these -principles are, they include the whole controversy. For I consider the -law allowing the drawback as the right of the fishery, the defects of -that law as the wrong suffered, and the bill before us as the remedy. -The defects of the law are many and grievous. Supposing 340,000 quintals -exported---- - - The salt duty is $42,744 - The drawback is only 34,000 - -------- - Loss to the fishery 8,744 - - Whereas Government pays $45,900, at - 13-1/2 cents, including charges, which are - 3-1/2 cents on a quintal: which is beyond - what the fishery receives 11,900 - -------- - Being a clear loss to the Government of 3,156 - -So that, though the whole is intended for the benefit of the fishery, -about one-fourth of what is paid is not so applied: there is a heavy -loss both to Government and the fishery. Even what is paid on the export -is nearly lost money; the bounty is not paid till the exportation, nor -then, till six months have elapsed; whereas the duty on salt is paid -before the fish is taken: it is paid to the exporter, not to the -fisherman. The bounty is so indirect, that the poor fisherman loses -sight of it. It is paid to such persons, in such places, and at such -periods, as to disappoint its good effects; passing through so many -hands, and paying so many profits to each, it is almost absorbed. The -encouragement, too, is greatest in successful years, when least needed; -and is least in bad fishing seasons, when it is most needed. It is a -very perplexed, embarrassing regulation to the officers of Government -and to the exporter; hence the great charge: and, with all this charge -and trouble, it is liable to many frauds. Four hundred miles of coast, -little towns, no officer. All these defects the bill remedies; and, -besides, gives the money on condition that certain regulations are -submitted to, which are worth almost as much as the money. - -The bill is defended on three grounds. First, it will promote the -national wealth; second, the national safety; third, justice requires -it: the last is fully relied on. - -To show that the fishery will increase the wealth of the nation, it -cannot be improper to mention its great value. The export before the war -brought more than a million of dollars into this country; probably it is -not less at present, and no small part in gold and silver. It is -computed that thirty thousand persons, including four thousand seamen, -subsist by it. Many say, very composedly, if it will not maintain -itself, let it fall. But we should not only lose the annual million of -dollars which it brings us; an immense capital would be lost. The -fishing towns are built on the naked rocks, or barren sands, on the side -of the sea. Those spots, however, where trade would sicken and -die--which husbandry scorns to till--and which nature seems to have -devoted to eternal barrenness, are selected by industry to work miracles -on. Houses, stores, and wharves, are erected, and a vast property -created, all depending on this business. Before you think it a light -thing to consign them to ruin, see if you can compute what they cost; if -they outrun your figures, then confess that it would be bad economy, as -well as bad policy, to suffer rival nations to ruin our fishery. The -regulations of foreign nations tend to bring this ruin about. France and -England equally endeavor, in the language of the Secretary of State, to -mount their marine on the destruction of our fishery. The fishers at -Newfoundland are allowed liberal bounties by the English Government; -and, in the French West Indies, we meet bounties on their fish and -duties on our own, and these amount to the price of the fish. From the -English islands we are quite shut out; yet such is the force of our -natural advantages, that we have not yielded to these rivals. The -Secretary of State has made these statements in his Report. - -The more fish we catch, the cheaper; the English fish will need a -greater bounty: whereas if we should yield, the English would probably -need no bounty at all; they would have the monopoly. For example; -suppose the English can fish at two dollars the quintal--we catch so -much that we sell at one dollar and two-thirds: the loss to them is -one-third of a dollar on each quintal. They must have that sum as a -bounty. Whereas, if we increase our fishery, a greater and a greater -bounty is needed by foreign nations. The contest so painfully sustained -by them must be yielded at last, and we shall enjoy alone an immense -fund of wealth to the nation, which nature has made ours; and though -foreigners disturb the possession, we shall finally enjoy it peaceably -and exclusively. If the lands of Kentucky are invaded, you drive off the -invader; and so you ought. Why not protect this property as well? These -opinions are supported by no common authority. The State of -Massachusetts having represented the discouragements of the fishery, the -subject has received the sanction of the Secretary of State; he confirms -the facts stated in the petition; he says it is too poor a business to -pay any thing to Government. - -Yet, instead of asking bounties, or a remission of the duties on the -articles consumed, we ask nothing but to give us our own money back, -which you received under an engagement to pay it back, in case the -article should be exported. If nothing was in view, therefore, but to -promote national wealth, it seems plain that this branch ought to be -protected and preserved; because, under all the discouragements it -suffers, it increases, and every year more and more enriches the -country, and promises to become an inexhaustible fund of wealth. - -Another view has been taken of the subject, which is drawn from the -naval protection afforded, in time of war, by a fishery. Our coasting -and foreign trade are increasing rapidly; but the richer our trade -becomes, the better prize to the enemy: so far from protecting us, it -would be the very thing that would tempt him to go to war with us. As -the rice and the tobacco planter cheerfully pay for armies, and turn out -in the militia to protect their property on shore, they cannot be so -much deceived as to wish to have it left unprotected when it is afloat; -especially when it is known that this protection, though more effectual -than the whole revenue expended on a navy could procure, will not cost a -farthing; on the contrary, it will enrich while it protects the nation. -The coasters and other seamen, in the event of a war, would be doubly in -demand, and could neither protect themselves nor annoy the enemy to any -considerable degree; but the fishermen, thrown out of business by a war, -would be instantly in action. They would, as they formerly did, embark -in privateers; having nothing to lose, and every thing to hope, they -would not dishonor their former fame. Their mode of life makes them -expert and hardy seamen. Nothing can be more adventurous. They cast -anchor on the banks, three hundred leagues from land, and with a great -length of cable ride out the storms of winter. If the gale proves too -strong they often sink at their anchors, and are food for fish which -they came to take: for ever wet, the sea almost becomes their element. -Cold and labor in that region of frost, brace their bodies, and they -become as hardy as the bears on the islands of ice: their skill and -spirit are not inferior: familiar with danger, they despise it. If I -were to recite their exploits, the theme would find every American heart -already glowing with the recollection of them; it would kindle more -enthusiasm than the subject has need of. My view is only to appeal to -facts, to evince the importance of the fishery as a means of naval -protection. It is proper to pass over Bunker's Hill, though memorable by -the valor of a regiment of fishermen; nor is it necessary to mention, -further, that five hundred fishermen fought at Trenton. - -It is known, that the privateers manned by fishermen, in want of every -thing, not excepting arms, which they depended on taking from their -enemies, brought into port warlike stores of every kind, as well as -every kind of merchandise sufficient for the army and country: the war -could not have been carried on without them. Among other exploits almost -beyond belief, one instance is worth relating: these people, in a -privateer of sixteen guns, and one hundred and fifty men, in one cruise -took more than twenty ships, with upwards of two hundred guns, and -nearly four hundred men. The privateers from a single district of -Massachusetts, where the fishery is chiefly seated, took more than two -thousand vessels, being one third of the British merchant vessels, and -brought in near one thousand two hundred. A hundred sail of privateers, -manned by fishermen, would scour every sea in case of a war. - -The first question is, how much does Government receive by the duty on -the salt used in curing the fish which is exported? The quantity of fish -must be known. Several ways of information are to be explored. The -Secretary of State supposes the fish of 1790 to be 354,276 quintals. A -Treasury return of fish exported from August 20, 1789, to September 30, -1790, which is thirteen and one-third months, is 378,721 quintals. For a -year, equal to 340,849 quintals. - -Foreign dried fish imported from August 15, 1789, to August, 1790, 3,701 -quintals; five per cent. drawback thereon is only three hundred and ten -dollars, at one dollar and sixty-six cents per quintal. Mr. GILES is -mistaken in supposing that foreign fish deducts $16,000 from our -estimate. Return of fish in seven months, from May 30, to December, -1790, exported, all fish of the United States, 197,278 quintals: which, -for a year, is 338,184 quintals. The medium may be fairly taken for the -time past at 340,000 quintals a year. - -Six gentlemen of Marblehead certify, that 5,043 hogsheads, or 40,344 -bushels of salt, were used on 38,497-1/2 quintals; which, for 340,000 -quintals, gives 356,200 bushels. The duty, at twelve cents, is $42,744, -which Government receives. But the charge to the United States, is, at -thirteen and a half cents per quintal - - $45,900 -Whereof the fishery receives ten cents -on each quintal exported 34,000 - ------ -Charges as the law stands 11,900 - -Further, this is but an estimate made up from what the last year proved. -The next may be very different, and probably it will be. If more money -should be demanded than $44,000, we must not be accused of misleading -Congress. But in that case an increase would be made by law; for the -more fish is exported, the more thirteen and a half cents must be paid; -so that the bill creates no burden in that way. But the increase of the -export of fish will probably operate in favor of Government. For it is -known that the economy, skill, and activity of the fishery are making -progress. Its success has progressed. The more fish to a vessel, the -cheaper the allowance on the tonnage. Therefore, the tonnage of vessels -will not increase in a ratio with the increase of the fish. - -The very objections prove this. For they deem the encouragement too -great. But any encouragement must have the effect. - -The difference of the agreements for distributing the fish according to -the present practice, or by this bill, makes a great one in the quantity -taken. The bill reforms the practice in this point. Marblehead vessels -take less than those from Beverly. The former throw the fish into a -common stock, which is afterwards divided upon a plan very unfriendly to -exertion. A man works for the whole--perhaps twelve hours, and they take -about eight hundred quintals to a vessel. But in Beverly, the exertion -is as great as can be made; eighteen hours a day, because each man has -what he catches, and they catch eleven hundred quintals. - -Marblehead seamen sailing from other towns, and dividing as last -mentioned, which the bill establishes, seldom fail to catch two or three -hundred quintals more than vessels and men from Marblehead on the first -plan. Accordingly, I assert on good authority, that the increase in -Marblehead only may be computed at fifteen thousand quintals, merely in -consequence of the reform by the bill. The best informed persons whom I -have consulted, entertain no doubt that the export, in case the bill -should pass, would not be less than four hundred thousand quintals, -probably more; but at four hundred thousand quintals, it would add seven -thousand two hundred dollars more to the salt duty; a sum more than -equal to any estimate of the actual tonnage, or any probable increase of -it - - $42,744 - 7,200 - ------ -Salt duty on 400,000 quintals 49,944 - -Other facts confirm the theory, that skill and exertion are increasing -in this business. - -In 1775, 25,000 tons, 4,405 seaman. Fish sold for $1,071,000. In 1790, -three-fourths of the seamen and three-fourths of the tonnage take as -much fish. It is owing to this that our fishery stood the competition -with foreign nations. - -Finally, the average in future may be relied on not to be less than -350,000 quintals. - -Salt duty on which $43,944 -Bounties 44,000 - ------ -Wanted 56 - -The calculations first made will answer the purpose, - -340,000 quintals pay salt duty $42,744 -Tonnage bounty 44,000 - ------ -Wanted 1,256 - -This is the mighty defect. Observe the authentic return of the export of -fish may be, and we can almost prove it to be, below the future export. -Whereas, to banish all doubt, we go to the top of the scale for the -tonnage, we take what we know to be the utmost. This we might have -represented more favorably if we had chosen to conceal any thing. But -even this will answer our purpose. - -For two hundred tons are wanting in the estimate of the bounties, being -nineteen thousand eight hundred, not twenty thousand, which will take -off one-third of the deficient sum. - -The tonnage over sixty-eight, which receives nothing, is not mentioned; -and which probably is not less than another third. - -The boats under five tons, though trifling, are to be noticed--they -receive nothing. - -But, above all, the chances of non-compliance with the regulations are -in favor of the remainder of the twelve hundred and fifty-six dollars -being stopped. Boats may not get twelve quintals to the ton, or vessels -may have their voyages broken up, and not stay four months on the -fishing ground; in either case they would receive nothing. Take all -these together, is it not to be doubted that twelve hundred and -fifty-six dollars will remain of the forty-four thousand in the -Treasury? - -But these are trifles which I cannot believe gentlemen are anxious -about. - -For the event cannot be reduced to a certainty. What quantity of fish -will be exported, no man can tell now. But as Government may receive -more than it will pay, the chance may turn the other way, and it may -have to pay a few hundred dollars more than it will have received. We -have seen that the chance is most in favor of Government. But one chance -must balance the other. This answer is sincerely relied on as a good -one. - -I barely mention that the wear of cordage, cables, sails, and anchors, -is very great. These articles, on being imported, pay duties. So that it -is probable the extra duty paid by the fishery on their extra -consumption, will overbalance any little sums supposed to exceed in the -bounty. - -It has been asked, as if some cunning was detected, why if the money -received in the Treasury to pay the drawbacks is equal to the proposed -bounties, a further appropriation should be made? This cunning question -admits of several very simple answers. - -The bill being for seven years, the average product is the proper sum to -be calculated. But the three first years may fall short of the bounties, -say two thousand dollars a year, which is six thousand dollars. - -The four last may exceed two thousand dollars, say eight thousand -dollars. - -Shall a poor fisherman wait for the whole, or if he takes his part -according to the money in the Treasury--for a twenty-fourth part of the -bounty on his vessel, from 1792 to 1795? - -2d. This delay would happen after a bad year, the very time when he -would most need prompt pay. - -3d. But fish taken this year will not be exported till December next. -Therefore the money will not be stopped by the drawback as the law -stands, till six months after. - -A substitute has been proposed for the clause, to appropriate the -drawback only. - -This is absolutely improper. For the ten cents allowed as drawback is -but a part of the duty paid on salt. It is not easy to see any reason -why a part stopped at the Treasury should be equal to the whole paid -there long before. The drawback falls near nine thousand dollars short -of the salt duty received by the Government. The expense of the drawback -would be very heavy and useless. - -Nor may gentlemen apprehend that Government, by paying next December, -will advance money to the fishery. The salt duty will have been paid, -and Government will have the use of the money many months before the -fishermen will have a right to call for the bounties. - -It is left to the candor of the gentlemen who have urged this objection, -whether a better or further answer is desired. - -After having laboriously gone through the estimate of the probable -export of fish, it will not be necessary to be equally minute as to the -quantity or kind of vessels which are to receive the bounty. - -The estimate we believe to be very high. That it is high enough, we -suppose very probable from the estimate of the Secretary of State, which -is only nineteen thousand one hundred and eighty-five tons. - -This mode of paying the bounty on the tonnage is very simple and safe. -The measurement is already made and costs nothing; and as it was made to -pay a duty on tonnage, we are very sure that Government will not be -cheated by an over-measure. The mode of paying the drawback, as the law -now stands, is expensive, perplexed and embarrassing; liable to frauds -and delays. - -This intricate and disgusting detail of calculations was necessary to -satisfy the committee that each of the three grounds of defence on which -the bill rests, is tenable. - -Instead of impoverishing the nation by scattering the treasures of the -whole to benefit a part, it appears that we are preserving a mine of -treasure. In point of naval protection, we can scarcely estimate the -fishery too highly. It is always ready, always equal to the object; it -is almost the only sufficient source of security by sea. Our navigation -is certainly a precious interest of the country. But no part of our -navigation can vie with the fishery in respect to the protection it -affords. There is no point which regards our national wealth or national -safety, in respect to which it seems practicable to do so much with so -little. - -We rely on the evidence before you, that the public will not sustain the -charge of a dollar. Those ought not to doubt the evidence who cannot -invalidate it. If then the fishermen ask you to restore only their own -money, will you deny them? Will you return to every other person -exporting dutied goods the money he has paid, and will you refuse the -poor fisherman? - -If there must be an instance of the kind, will you single out for this -oppressive partiality, that branch which is described by the Secretary -of State as too poor even to bear its own part of the common burden; -that branch which nevertheless has borne the neglect of our nation, and -the persecution of foreign prohibitions and duties; a branch which, -though we have received much and expect more, both of money and -services, urges no claims but such as common justice has sanctioned? - -Mr. GERRY having moved to strike out the words "bounty allowed" in order -to insert _allowance made_, by way of accommodation, - -Mr. MURRAY observed, that the question was, whether a bounty should be -given for the encouragement of the fishery: the amendment proposed by -the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GERRY) did not alter the -principle--it was still "_the old cocked hat_" on the one hand, and on -the other, "_the cocked old hat_:" the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. -FITZSIMONS) had asserted, that Congress have a right to alter the -drawbacks, and allow them in any other mode, by which the citizens may -receive back their own money; but this is not a case of that nature; for -the bill says, "in case the moneys appropriated (_for the payment of the -duties_) shall be inadequate, the deficiency shall be supplied from the -Treasury;" here the Treasury is pledged for the payment of the bounties; -and the question is, not on the principle of changing the drawback, but -the giving encouragement to a particular branch, at the expense of the -community at large. - -Mr. BARNWELL observed, that those who are best acquainted with the -fisheries, look on the proposed mode of encouragement as the best; and -that they ought to be allowed to use the gifts of the public in the most -advantageous manner: that, if he were himself concerned in the -cultivation of any particular commodity, for the encouragement of which -a sum were granted, he would be much surprised to meet a refusal, in -case he should come forward and propose some more effectual mode of -applying that grant: that even if the bounties should happen to exceed -the drawbacks, by eight or ten thousand dollars, the number of seamen to -be maintained would be well worth that sum: that whenever the two Houses -of Congress and the President of the United States are of opinion that -the general welfare will be promoted by raising any sum of money, they -have undoubted right to raise it, provided that the taxes be uniform; -that although it may not at present be an object of great consequence to -America to become a maritime power, yet it is of some importance to have -constantly at hand a nursery of seamen, to furnish our merchants with -the means of transporting their commodities across the sea; that, -whatever allowance or bounty is granted upon any particular commodity, -must ever be paid by the whole, for the advantage of a part, whether it -be upon cotton to the Southward, upon fish to the Eastward, or upon -other commodities to the Middle States; that if the people cannot have -so much confidence in their Representatives, as to trust them with the -power of granting bounties, the Government must be a very paltry one -indeed. The object of the bill was only to allow to the fishermen, in -the manner that would be most beneficial to them, the same sum that -would otherwise be allowed. If, however, from time and experience, it -should appear that this bounty proved an imposition on Government, he -would not hesitate to revoke it. - -Mr. GERRY.--The State of Massachusetts asks nothing more than equal -justice. We do not come forward to request favors from the United -States, we only wish that the same system which is applied to other -parts of the Union, may be applied to us. But, in examining this -question, we wish that gentlemen would not make distinctions which will -not admit of a difference. - -The proposed allowance has been called a bounty on occupation, and is -said to be very different from that encouragement, which is the -incidental result of a general commercial system; but in reality it is -no bounty: a bounty is a grant, made without any consideration whatever, -as an equivalent; and I have no idea of a bounty, which admits of -receiving from the person, on whom it is conferred, the amount of what -is granted. We have imposed a duty on salt, and thereby draw a certain -sum of money from the fishermen; the drawback is, in all instances, the -amount of the money received; this is all we ask; and we ask it for a -set of men who are as well entitled to the regard of Government as any -other class of citizens. - -It has been supposed, that the allowance made to the fishermen, will -amount to a greater sum than the drawback on the exportation of the -fish; but I think it has been clearly shown that this will not be the -case: on the contrary, it is presumable, that the drawback on the fish -would on the whole exceed the sum which is proposed to be allowed to the -fishermen; sometimes it might be more, sometimes less. The calculation -is made on general principles; and it is impossible to calculate to a -single cent: the quantity of salt to be expended on the fish, cannot be -minutely ascertained; but this was not heretofore considered as a -sufficient reason why Congress should refuse to allow the drawback; they -allowed it, though in a different shape. It is now proposed to make a -further commutation: gentlemen call this a bounty on occupation; but is -there any proposition made for paying to the fishermen, or other persons -concerned in the fishery, any sums which we have not previously received -from them? If this were the case, it would indeed be a bounty; but if we -beforehand receive from them as much as the allowance amounts to, there -is no bounty granted at all. - -If, however, it really was a bounty on occupation, it would after all be -only an indulgence similar to what has been granted to the landed and -agricultural interest. We have laid on hemp a duty of fifty-four cents -per hundredweight; and on beer, ale, and porter, five cents per gallon. -Now, I ask gentlemen, whether the professed design of those duties was -to raise a revenue, or to prevent the importation of those articles? -They were laid for no other purpose, than to prevent foreigners from -importing them, and thereby to encourage our own manufactures; and was -not that encouragement a bounty to the persons concerned in producing -such articles in this country? If the duties had not been laid, the -importer could sell much cheaper than he now can; and the landed -interest would be under a necessity of selling cheaper in proportion. If -those prohibitory duties operate as a bounty in favor of raising hemp, -and of brewing beer, ale, and porter, I ask, whether, if a bounty were -proposed on every quintal of fish, it might not, with the same -propriety, be granted? If we have not a right to grant a bounty in the -one case, we have as little right to grant it in the other. - -A calculation has been offered to show that the proposed allowance will -exceed the amount of the present drawbacks, by ten thousand dollars a -year; but that calculation has been proved to be erroneous. Suppose, -however, that this was the fact, what comparison is there between such a -tax on the citizens of the United States, and the tax borne by the -citizens of Massachusetts, for the defence of the Western frontier? A -commercial war is waged against the American fisheries, by foreign -nations, who lay heavy duties on the American fish, and apply the -produce of those duties in bounties to their own fishermen; and their -fisheries being less extensive than ours, the duty thus imposed on our -fish, and bestowed in bounties to their vessels, operate in a twofold -proportion to the discouragement of our fishermen, and the encouragement -of theirs. - -I wish to know on what principle gentlemen can expect, that the citizens -of Massachusetts should contribute two hundred thousand dollars, or -perhaps a greater sum, for the protection of the Western frontier -against the Indians, when no contribution is made to support the -commerce of Massachusetts, which, without this support, will be as -effectually ruined, as if their vessels were captured by an enemy. The -principle is carried farther with respect to the protection of the -frontier: we have voted large sums as presents to the savages, to keep -them friends to the frontier settlers; there is, however, no clause in -the constitution that will authorize a measure of this kind: it is true, -indeed, we have a power to regulate trade and commerce with the Indian -tribes; but does that give us a power to render the United States -tributary to the savages? and if we make them such grants every year, do -we not in fact become tributary to them? - -The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) says that although this plan of -encouraging the fisheries may be wise policy in Britain, as being on all -sides surrounded by the sea, yet the United States will not equally find -their account in pursuing the same plan. The State of Virginia is, in -point of exposure from the sea, very differently circumstanced from the -State of Massachusetts: _we_ have a vast extent of country four hundred -and fifty miles of sea-coast, exposed; the citizens of all the towns -along the coast are obliged to pursue marine occupations and I hope the -gentleman does not wish that the country should be depopulated, and the -inhabitants driven off to settle the Western territory. - -The State of Virginia is very happily circumstanced with respect to a -marine war: should such an event take place, that State is pretty secure -from depredations; but when we consider how much the inhabitants of -Massachusetts are exposed in a case of that kind, we ought to look -forward, and make some provision for their defence: they have as good a -right to expect that Government will make some arrangements for their -protection, as that they shall be obliged to contribute for the defence -of the Western frontier. - -But their commerce, it seems, must not be supported! Taxes however must -be laid; and those taxes applied to encourage the former, and to bribe -the Indians into peace! Is this fair? Is this pursuing a liberal system -of politics? Will this reconcile the minds of our people to the General -Government? If so reasonable a proposition be neglected by the House, it -will convince the citizens of that State, that it is the object of -Government to destroy their commerce, and to make them entirely -dependent on the agricultural interest. - -Here Mr. GERRY read a statement, to show the diminution of the revenue -in consequence of the failure of the fisheries; and added, - -To support the fisheries, is to support the revenue: by that staple, the -citizens of Massachusetts are enabled to pay the revenue that is -expected from them; and, by an attempt to save ten thousand dollars, -Government will probably sacrifice a hundred thousand; and besides, lose -the confidence of the citizens of that State. - -The only question now is, whether this be a direct bounty, or simply a -commutation of the allowance already granted by Congress? If the latter -be the case, I can see no reason why we should refuse our assent to a -proposition, which is only calculated to do justice to the people -concerned, and to give encouragement to a very important branch in the -United States; especially as the proposition will even have a tendency -to increase the revenue. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON.--It has been urged with great propriety, in favor of the -bill now submitted to our consideration, that the operation of our laws -should in all cases tend to encourage useful industry; that while we are -giving back the duties on all other foreign goods which are exported, -it would be unjust and cruel to refuse a full drawback of the duties on -salt which may be exported, especially when the circumstances of its -exportation are attended with an increase of riches and strength to the -nation. Impressed as I am with the force of these arguments, and -desirous as I am to protect and encourage the native seamen of America, -by all prudent, practicable, and constitutional means, I shall -nevertheless find it my duty to vote for striking out the first section -of the bill, because it proposes to give a bounty for the encouragement -of the vessels employed in the fisheries. - -We have been told that the name is improper; that it is simply a -drawback of the duty upon salt; and gentlemen have produced a very -ingenious calculation, by which they attempt to prove, that in some -years it may happen that the whole duty on the salt will not be repaid; -but they admit that in some years the drawback or bounty will exceed the -duty. It is certainly their opinion--and in this we are perfectly -agreed--that the money to be paid will be more than that received, else -there had been no use for so large an appropriation. We shall not -trouble the committee with calculations on this subject. It is conceded, -that the encouragement to be given, probably will exceed the full -drawback of the duty on salt. In other words, a douceur or a proper -bounty is to be given: let us call it one thousand dollars per annum. Is -it within the powers of this Congress to grant bounties? I think not; -and on this single position I would rest the argument. - -In the constitution of this Government there are two or three remarkable -provisions, which seem to be in point. It is provided, that direct taxes -shall be apportioned among the several States according to their -respective numbers. It is also provided, that all duties, imposts, and -excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and it is -provided, that no preference shall be given, by any regulation of -commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another. -The clear and obvious intention of the articles mentioned was, that -Congress might not have the power of imposing unequal burdens; that it -might not be in their power to gratify one part of the Union by -oppressing another. It appeared possible, and not very improbable, that -the time might come, when, by greater cohesion, by more unanimity, by -more address, the Representatives of one part of the Union might attempt -to impose unequal taxes, or to relieve their constituents at the expense -of other people. To prevent the possibility of such a combination, the -articles that I have mentioned were inserted in the constitution. -Suppose a poll-tax should be attempted; suppose it should be enacted -that every poll in the Eastern States shall pay a tax of half a dollar, -and every poll in the Southern States should pay a tax of one dollar. Do -you think we should pay the tax? No certainly. We should plead the -constitution, and tell you that the law was impotent and void. - -But we have been told, that Congress may give bounties for useful -purposes; that is to say, they may give bounties for all imaginable -purposes; because the same majority that votes the bounty will not fail -to call the purpose a good one. Establish the doctrine of bounties, and -let us see what may follow. Uniform taxes are laid to raise money, and -that money is distributed--not uniformly; the whole of it may be given -to the people in one end of the Union. Could we say, in such a case, -that the tax had been uniform? I think not. There is certainly a -majority in this House who think that the nation would be stronger and -more independent, if all our labor was performed by free men. This -object might be promoted by a bounty. Let a poll-tax be laid, according -to the constitution, of one dollar per poll: in this case, sixty cents -must be paid for each slave; and the number of slaves being 680,186, -their tax would amount to $334,911. To encourage the labor of citizens, -let Congress then give an annual bounty of one dollar to every free man -who is a mechanic, or who labors in the field. We might be told that the -bounty was small, and the object was good; but the measure would be most -oppressive, for it would be a clear tax of rather more than three -hundred thousand dollars on the Southern States. - -Perhaps the case I have put is too strong--Congress can never do a thing -that is so palpably unjust--but this, sir, is the very mark at which the -theory of bounties seems to point. The certain operation of that measure -is the oppression of the Southern States, by superior numbers in the -Northern interest. This was to be feared at the formation of this -Government, and you find many articles in the constitution, besides -those I have quoted, which were certainly intended to guard us against -the dangerous bias of interest, and the power of numbers. Wherefore was -it provided that no duty should be laid on exports? Was it not to defend -the great staples of the Southern States--tobacco, rice, and -indigo--from the operation of unequal regulations of commerce, or -unequal indirect taxes, as another article had defended us from unequal -direct taxes? - -I do not hazard much in saying, that the present constitution had never -been adopted without those preliminary guards in it. Establish the -general doctrine of bounties, and all the provisions I have mentioned -become useless. They vanish into air, and like the baseless fabric of a -vision, leave not a trace behind. The common defence and general -welfare, in the hands of a good politician, may supersede every part of -our constitution, and leave us in the hands of time and chance. -Manufactures, in general, are useful to the nation; they promote the -public good and general welfare. How many of them are springing up in -the Northern States? Let them be properly supported by bounties, and you -will find no occasion for unequal taxes. The tax may be equal in the -beginning--it will be sufficiently unequal in the end. - -We are told, that a nursery of seamen may be of great use to the nation, -and the bounty proposed is a very small one. These, sir, are the reasons -why I have marked this as a dangerous bill; the most dangerous -innovations are made under these circumstances. To begin with a great -bounty would be imprudent, and to give a small bounty for a doubtful -purpose, might deserve a worse epithet. Half a million of dollars per -annum would have been too much for a beginning, and perhaps a bounty on -the use of sleighs, though they are convenient for travelling in winter; -or a bounty on stone fences, though they are durable, would not at this -time be prudent. The object of the bounty, and the amount of it, are -equally to be disregarded in the present case; we are simply to consider -whether bounties may safely be given under the present constitution. For -myself, I would rather begin with a bounty of one million per annum than -one thousand. I wish that my constituents may know whether they are to -put any confidence in that paper called the constitution. - -You will suffer me to say, that the Southern States have much to fear -from the progress of this Government, unless your strength is governed -by prudence. The operation of the funding system has translated at least -two millions of dollars from the Southern States, that is to say, from -Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia, to the Northern States. The -interest of that sum, when it shall be six per cent., will be $120,000; -but the quota of those States is at least one-third of the whole; whence -it follows, that they must pay forty thousand dollars every year, in the -form of interest to the Northern States. This, it seems, is not -sufficient, and other measures are to be adopted for draining the -Southern States. Bounties to promote the general welfare are already -brought forward. We shall not hear of a bounty for raising rice, or -preparing naval stores. If that was the question, the general welfare -would not have such prominent features. Unless the Southern States are -protected by the constitution, their valuable staples, and their -visionary wealth, must occasion their destruction. Three short years has -this Government existed--it is not three years--but we have already -given serious alarms to many of our fellow-citizens. Establish the -doctrine of bounties, set aside that part of the constitution which -requires equal taxes and demands similar distributions, destroy this -barrier, and it is not a few fishermen that will enter, claiming ten or -twelve thousand dollars, but all manner of persons--people of every -trade and occupation--may enter at the breach, until they have eaten up -the bread of our children. - -Perhaps I have viewed this project in too serious a light; but if I am -particularly solicitous on the subject of finance, that we do not even -seem to depart from the spirit of the constitution, it is because I wish -that the Union may be perpetual. The several States are now pretty well -relieved from their debts, and our fellow-citizens in the Southern -States have very little interest in the national funds; press them a -little with unequal taxes, and the remedy is plain. - -While I would shun bounties, as leading to dangerous measures, I am not -inattentive to every argument that has been advanced by the honorable -member who first rose in defence of the bill. That gentleman tells us, -that more than a bushel of salt is used in curing a quintal of fish. If -this fact be established, the former act should be amended, by giving a -greater drawback. He says the drawback, as it is now paid to the -merchant, does not operate so as to encourage the seamen, who have most -need of such assistance. This is very probable, and the parties may be -relieved by dividing the drawback in the very manner that is proposed by -the bill. If it is true that the proposed bounties will not exceed the -average of the drawback that should be paid on salt, why do they contend -about names, unless they are solicitous about the precedent? If our -object is to encourage industry, and to increase our commerce, by -sending fish to a foreign market, we must adhere to the drawback; for, -according to the terms of the bill, the bounty is to be paid, though -every fish that is caught should be consumed in the country; in which -case we should be paying a visionary drawback, when nothing was -exported. According to the terms of the bill, there is no proportion -between the labor and the reward, so far as the bank fishery is -concerned; the bounty in all cases being the same. - -Having exercised your patience in objecting to this new system of -bounties, and having hinted on some objections to the general operations -of the bill, so far as industry and enterprise may be desired, I shall, -in a few words, submit the outline of a plan that seems to comprehend -all the useful parts of the bill, without any speculation upon bounties. - -If the drawback on dried fish exported, is not equal to the duty on the -salt used in curing such fish, let the drawback be increased to eleven -cents or twelve cents, as the case may be. Let us suppose that the -drawback for the next year will be equal to the drawback on the last -year; and let that sum of money, being the expected drawback, be divided -between the seamen and owners, according to the terms of the bill. The -accounts must be made up annually. If the drawback exceeds the allowance -that had been made, the difference will be considered as advanced to the -fishery, and the allowance for the next year must be somewhat reduced, -according to the actual amount of the drawback. If the fishermen are -more fortunate or more active, and the exports are increased, the -allowance for the next year must be raised. The rule being fixed by law, -all that remains, being pure calculation, may be done from year to year -by the Executive. Every important object of this bill, that has been -presented to our view, may be obtained by safe and constitutional steps. -Why should a man take a dangerous and a doubtful path, when a safe one -presents itself? If nothing more is desired than to regulate and protect -the fishery, the bill may be altered and accommodated to that purpose. -If the theory of bounties is to be established, by which the Southern -States must suffer while others gain, the bill informs us what we are to -expect. - -The committee now rose, without taking any question. - - -MONDAY, February 6. - -A member from Maryland, to wit, JOHN FRANCIS MERCER, returned to serve -in the room of WILLIAM PINKNEY, resigned, appeared, and took his seat in -the House. - -A petition of the tanners of the town of Newark, in the State of New -Jersey, was presented to the House and read, stating the inconveniences -they suffer from the erection of mills for the purpose of grinding -tanners' bark for exportation, and praying that Congress will adopt such -measures for their relief as may appear just and right. Ordered to lie -on the table. - -_The Cod Fisheries._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the encouragement of -the Bank and other Cod Fisheries, and for the regulation and government -of the fishermen employed therein." - -Mr. GOODHUE.--The gentleman last up (Mr. WILLIAMSON) says, that an -appropriation of money being made by the bill now before us, and the -Treasury standing pledged for the payment, therefore a direct bounty is -granted. At present, we pay in drawbacks about $45,000; but we cannot -say that this sum will be adequate to the payment of the drawbacks next -year; for, if a greater quantity of fish be taken, a greater sum, of -course, must be allowed; and, as the sum depends entirely on the -quantity of fish, it is impossible to ascertain beforehand the precise -amount. There is not, however, in the whole bill, any thing of a bounty -except the bare name. The gentleman allows that we may commute the -present drawbacks, and give them to the fisherman instead of the -merchant; but it is impossible to do this with safety in any other mode -than that pointed out in the bill. Shall we leave it to the fisherman, -to be determined by his oath? This would not be advisable. - -The plan proposed is a much less exceptionable one. It is founded on a -calculation that a certain quantity of tonnage is employed in taking a -certain quantity of fish. On this calculation the allowance is -apportioned to the tonnage. If gentlemen think the allowance too high, -let the sum be reduced; but let it not be stigmatized as a bounty. It is -no such thing. The word "bounty" is an unfortunate expression, and I -wish it were entirely out of the bill. - -Mr. LIVERMORE.--The bill now under consideration has two important -objects in view. The one is, to give encouragement to our fishermen, -and, by that encouragement, to increase their numbers; the other is to -govern those fishermen by certain laws, by which they will be kept under -due restraint. Both these objects are of great importance to such -persons as choose to employ their capitals in the fishery business. And -I believe it will not be disputed that the business itself is of -considerable importance to the United States, insomuch as it affords a -certain proportion of remittance or exportation to foreign countries, -and does not impoverish the country, but enriches it by the addition of -so much wealth drawn from the sea. - -It is the object of those gentlemen who favor the bill that the -fishermen should have some encouragement, not given to them at the -expense of the United States, but directed to them out of what was in -the former law called a drawback of the duty on salt. The calculation, -as I understand it, has been made as nearly as possible to give that -drawback, not to the merchants who export the fish, but to the fishermen -who take it, in order to increase that description of men, without whose -assistance it is vain to expect any benefit from the fisheries; for, if -the merchants at present engaged in that branch possessed the whole -capital of the United States, yet, if they cannot get fishermen, they -cannot carry on the fishery. This is done by a particular class of men, -who must be not only expert seamen, but also accustomed to taking the -fish and curing it. If these men cannot be had, the capital cannot be -employed, and those who undertake the business cannot carry it on, or -reap any profit from it. - -Whilst the drawback is payable only to the merchant who exports the -fish, it is impossible to convince the fishermen that they reap from it -any advantage whatever; or, if the more discerning among them do -perceive any advantage in it, the others who are not so clear-sighted -cannot discern it, and are therefore not disposed to undertake the -business. It is, however, of considerable importance to the merchants -that the fisherman should receive a proper encouragement, even if they -were obliged to allow him a bounty out of their own pocket. - -The government of the fishermen, after their engagement in this -business, is also necessary to be provided for; otherwise, frequent -instances may occur among that class of men of quitting one vessel to -embark on board another, or of shipping themselves for a foreign voyage, -before the expiration of the fishing season. In the latter case, the -vessel lies useless on the owner's hands, and he, together with the -whole expense of the outfit, loses all his prospects of future gain. - -The two objects here mentioned are fully provided for in the bill. -Still, however, it is objected to. But what is the objection? It is, -that the word "_bounty_" is twice used in this clause. Let us now see -what advantage will result from striking out this obnoxious "_bounty_." -None at all. The bill says it shall cease; and have gentlemen any -objection to the bounty's ceasing? Since the bounty is to cease by this -bill, what advantage in striking it out? The sense would still remain -the same; and I do not know why we should make a law expressly to strike -out the word "bounty," but to strike out the bounty itself. - -It is strange to me that any gentleman, whether he is for giving a great -bounty or no bounty at all, should quarrel with this unfortunate word. -There is, indeed, one part of the section which I will readily consent -to strike out, and I believe every other gentleman who is in favor of -the bill will consent to it likewise; and that is the clause which -provides that the bounty to be allowed and paid on every vessel for one -season, shall not exceed one hundred and seventy dollars. If, when the -vote is taken on the section, there does not appear a majority of the -House in favor of striking out the whole, we may then move for striking -out the _proviso_, if it be offensive to any gentleman. If it be not -offensive, it may remain. - -If gentlemen are disputing only because the word "_bounty_" is in the -bill, they may be perfectly relieved from their uneasiness on that -score; for the bill expressly says, "that the bounty now allowed upon -the exportation of dried fish of the fisheries of the United States -shall cease, and in lieu thereof," a different kind of encouragement is -to be given. Here is no reason to dispute about a word. If gentlemen are -disposed to consent to the principle of the bill, that the drawback of -the duties on salt shall be commuted for a certain sum, to encourage the -fishermen, they will vote in favor of the bill; if not, they will vote -against it. But it is impossible for me to conceive why any gentleman -under heaven should be against it. It is only fixing, for the merchants -engaged in this branch, a clear and equitable ratio for distributing -among the fishermen that encouragement which they think necessary in -order to attach those people to the business, and to prevent them from -going to other occupations on land. The bill is an important one, and -will increase that branch of business, which is very useful to the -community. It does not lay a farthing of bounty or duty on any other -persons than those who are immediately concerned in it. It will serve -them, and will not injure any body. - -Mr. LAURANCE said, from examining the section, he conceived it -contemplated no more than what the merchant is entitled to by existing -laws. The merchant is now entitled to the drawback; but it is found by -experience that the effect has not been to produce that encouragement to -the fishermen which was expected; and he presumed the way was perfectly -clear to give a new direction to the drawback, and this is all that is -aimed at in the bill. He supposed that the clause had no necessary -connection with the question which had been started respecting the right -of the Government to grant bounties; but, since the question has been -brought forward, it may be proper to consider it. In discussing the -question, he inquired, What has Congress already done? Have we not laid -extra duties on various articles, expressly for the purpose of -encouraging various branches of our own manufactures? These duties are -_bounties_ to all intents and purposes, and are founded on the idea only -of their conducing to the _general interest_. Similar objections to -those now advanced were not made to these duties. They were advocated, -some of them, by gentlemen from the Southward. He traced the effects of -these duties, and showed that they operated fully as indirect bounties. - -Mr. L. then adverted particularly to the constitution, and observed that -it contains _general_ principles and powers only. These powers depend on -_particular_ laws for their operation; and on this idea, he contended -that the powers of the Government must, in various circumstances, extend -to the granting bounties. He instanced, in case of a war with a foreign -power, will any gentleman say that the General Government has not a -power to grant a bounty on arms, ammunition, &c., should the general -welfare require it? The general welfare is inseparably connected with -any object or pursuit which in its effects adds to the riches of the -country. He conceived that the argument was given up by gentlemen in -opposition to the bill, when they admit of encouragement to the -fishermen in any possible modification of it. He then adverted -particularly to the fisheries, stated the number of men employed, the -tons of shipping necessary to export the fish taken, and inferred the -sound policy of encouraging so important a branch of business. - -Gentlemen say that we do not want a navy. Grant it; but can they say -that we shall never have a war with any European power? May not the time -arrive when the protection to the commerce of this country, derived from -this source, may be of the utmost necessity to its existence? Adverting -to Mr. WILLIAMSON's objection from the unequal operation of bounties, -and who had referred to the article of the constitution which says that -taxes shall be equal in all the States, Mr. L. observed, that this -article in the constitution could only respect the _rates_ of the -duties, and that the _same_ duties should be paid in Virginia that are -paid in New York--at the Northward as at the Southward. It surely could -not mean that every individual should pay exactly the same sum in every -part of the Union. This was a provision that no law could possible -contemplate. - -He concluded by a summary recapitulation of his arguments, and saying he -hoped the section would be retained. - -Mr. MADISON.--In the conflict I feel between my disposition on one hand -to afford every constitutional encouragement to the fisheries, and my -dislike, on the other, of the consequences apprehended from some clauses -of the bill, I should have forborne to enter into this discussion, if I -had not found, that over and above such arguments as appear to be -natural and pertinent to the subject, others have been introduced which -are, in my judgment, contrary to the true meaning, and even strike at -the characteristic principles of the existing constitution. Let me -premise, however, to the remarks which I shall briefly offer, on the -doctrine maintained by these gentlemen, that I make a material -distinction, in the present case, between an allowance as a mere -commutation and modification of a drawback, and an allowance in the -nature of a real and positive bounty. I make a distinction also, as a -subject of fair consideration at least, between a bounty granted under -the particular terms in the constitution, "a power to regulate trade," -and one granted under the indefinite terms which have been cited as -authority on this occasion. I think, however, that the term "bounty," is -in every point of view improper as it is here applied, not only because -it may be offensive to some, and in the opinion of others carries a -dangerous implication, but also because it does not express the true -intention of the bill, as avowed and advocated by its patrons -themselves. For if, in the allowance, nothing more is proposed than a -mere reimbursement of the sum advanced, it is only paying a debt; and -when we pay a debt, we ought not to claim the merit of granting a -bounty. - -It is supposed by some gentlemen, that Congress have authority not only -to grant bounties in the sense here used, merely as a commutation for -drawbacks, but even to grant them under a power by virtue of which they -may do any thing which they may think conducive to the "general -welfare." This, sir, in my mind, raises the important and fundamental -question, whether the general terms which had been cited, are to be -considered as a sort of caption or general description of the specified -powers, and as having no further meaning, and giving no further power -than what is found in that specification; or as an abstract and -indefinite delegation of power extending to all cases whatever; to all -such, at least, as will admit the application of money, which is giving -as much latitude as any government could well desire. - -I, sir, have always conceived--I believe those who proposed the -constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more -material to observe that those who ratified the constitution -conceived--that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its -powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a -limited Government, tied down to the specified powers which explain and -define the general terms. The gentlemen who contend for a contrary -doctrine are surely not aware of the consequences which flow from it, -and which they must either admit or give up their doctrine. - -It will follow, in the first place, that if the terms be taken in the -broad sense they maintain, the particular powers afterwards so carefully -and distinctly enumerated would be without any meaning, and must go for -nothing. It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what -they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing; -after giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes -which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be -absurd, to say the least, to superadd a power to raise armies, to -provide fleets, &c. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in -question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which -limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one -limited, as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a -Government without any limits at all. - -It is to be recollected, that the terms "common defence and general -welfare," as here used, are not novel terms, first introduced into this -constitution. They are terms familiar in their construction, and well -known to the people of America. They are repeatedly found in the old -Articles of Confederation, where, although they are susceptible of as -great latitude as can be given them by the context here, it was never -supposed or pretended that they conveyed any such power as is now -assigned to them. On the contrary, it was always considered as clear and -certain, that the old Congress was limited to the enumerated powers, and -that the enumeration limited and explained the general terms. I ask the -gentlemen themselves, whether it ever was supposed or suspected that the -old Congress could give away the moneys of the States in bounties, to -encourage agriculture, or for any other purpose they pleased? If such a -power had been possessed by that body, it would have been much less -impotent, or have borne a very different character from that universally -ascribed to it. - -The novel idea now annexed to these terms, and never before entertained -by the friends or enemies of the Government, will have a further -consequence, which cannot have been taken into the view of the -gentlemen. Their construction would not only give Congress the complete -Legislative power I have stated--it would do more--it would supersede -all the restrictions understood at present to lie on their power with -respect to the Judiciary. It would put it in the power of Congress to -establish courts throughout the United States, with cognizance of suits -between citizen and citizen, and in all cases whatsoever. This, sir, -seems to be demonstrable; for if the clause in question really -authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for -the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be -applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a -Judiciary Establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases -favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner -as they have power to pass laws and apply money, providing in any other -way for the general welfare. I shall be reminded, perhaps, that -according to the terms of the constitution, the Judicial Power is to -extend to certain cases only, not to all cases. But this circumstance -can have no effect in the argument, it being presupposed by the -gentlemen that the specification of certain objects does not limit the -import of general terms. Taking these terms as an abstract and -indefinite grant of power, they comprise all the objects of Legislative -regulation, as well such as fall under the Judiciary article in the -constitution, as those falling immediately under the Legislative -article; and if the partial enumeration of objects in the Legislative -article does not, as these gentlemen contend, limit the general power, -neither will it be limited by the partial enumeration of objects in the -Judiciary article. - -There are consequences, sir, still more extensive, which, as they follow -clearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the -doctrine must be given up. If Congress can apply money indefinitely to -the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general -welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they -may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them -out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the -education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout -the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than -post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State -legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown -under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would -admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress -pleased, provisions for the general welfare. - -The language held in various discussions of this House, is a proof that -the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, -wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the -peculiar nature of this Government, as limited to certain enumerated -powers, instead of extending, like other Governments, to all cases not -particularly excepted. In a very late instance--I mean the debate on the -Representation bill--it must be remembered, that an argument much urged, -particularly by a gentleman from Massachusetts, against the ratio of one -for thirty thousand, was, that this Government was unlike the State -Governments, which had an indefinite variety of objects within their -power; that it had a small number of objects only to attend to, and -therefore that a smaller number of Representatives would be sufficient -to administer it. - -Several arguments have been advanced to show, that because, in the -regulation of trade, indirect and eventual encouragement is given to -manufactures, therefore Congress have power to give money in direct -bounties, or to grant it in any other way that would answer the same -purpose. But surely, sir, there is a great and obvious difference, which -it cannot be necessary to enlarge upon. A duty laid on imported -implements of husbandry, would, in its operation, be an indirect tax on -exported produce; but will any one say, that by virtue of a mere power -to lay duties on imports, Congress might go directly to the produce or -implements of agriculture, or to the articles exported? It is true, -duties on exports are expressly prohibited; but if there were no article -forbidding them, a power directly to tax exports could never be deduced -from a power to tax imports, although such a power might directly and -incidentally affect exports. - -In short, sir, without going further into the subject, which I should -not have here touched on at all but for the reasons already mentioned, I -venture to declare it as my opinion, that were the power of Congress to -be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very -foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government -established by the people of America; and what inferences might be -drawn, or what consequences ensue from such a step, it is incumbent on -us all well to consider. - -With respect to the question before the House, for striking out the -clause, it is immaterial whether it be struck out, or so amended as to -rest on the avowed principle of a commutation for the drawback; but as a -clause has been drawn up by my colleague, in order to be substituted, I -shall concur in a vote for striking out, reserving to myself a freedom -to be governed in my final vote by the modification which may prevail. - -Mr. BOURNE, of Massachusetts-- - -Mr. Chairman: I think little can be added after so full a discussion of -the subject before you. The object of the first section in this bill is -intended for the relief of the fishermen and their owners. They complain -that the law now in force was meant for their benefit, by granting a -drawback on the fish exported; this they find by experience is not the -case, for they say, that neither the fishermen who catch the fish, nor -the importer of the salt, receive the drawback; and I rather suppose, -sir, it is the case. The owners of the greater part of the fishing -vessels are not merchants, neither do they import the salt they consume; -but when the fish they take are cured for market, they are sold at the -market price; and it frequently happens that those persons who purchase -the fish are not the exporters of them, or the importers of the salt, -but a third person, who purchases with a prospect of selling them at a -profit, is the exporter; and when it so happens, neither the fisherman -who catches the fish, nor the importer of the salt, receives any benefit -from the drawback, unless the purchaser (the third person) give a -greater price in contemplation of the drawback, which I think is not to -be supposed. - -Is it worthy the attention of Government that the cod fishery should be -preserved? It appears to me that it is. When we consider the labor and -assiduity bestowed on this object by our Ministers, at the settlement of -peace between us and Great Britain, and the care then taken to secure -this privilege, as appears by the treaty--[here Mr. B. read that part of -the treaty which secures to us the fishery, he then proceeded]--and -consider the struggle made to deprive us of this inestimable branch of -commerce, I cannot suppose that any one would, at this day, voluntarily -relinquish it, and suffer Great Britain to monopolize this branch, and -supply the Mediterranean, French, and other markets. Great Britain, at -present, enjoys a sufficient portion of this commerce, while France is -confined to the narrow limits of St. Peters and Miquelon. If we -relinquish this branch of the cod fishery, what is left us? Our whale -fishery is nearly at an end, and unless Government speedily interpose, -by granting relief, we shall totally lose it. Does not the British -Government wish to deprive us of this branch also? Have not letters of -agents been sent to the island of Nantucket, as well as New Bedford, -where this branch of business is principally prosecuted, inviting the -whale fishermen to remove, and offering them permanent settlements at -Milford-Haven, at the expense of their Government? This must be viewed -as a great encouragement, in addition to their bounties on oil, to a -class of poor men employed in that business. If the cod fishery is -relinquished, the fishermen have only to remove to the opposite shore of -Nova Scotia, where they will find encouragement fully adequate to their -services--of all which they are not unapprised. By encouraging this -class of men, your revenue will be increased; for in return for the fish -exported, you will receive sugar, coffee, cocoa, indigo, molasses, -pimento, cotton, dye-woods, rum, wine, salt, fruit, and other articles -subject to duty, and consumed in the country. And again, your Treasury -will receive an excess by the provision in this bill; for I presume the -greater proportion of vessels employed in this business are from twenty -to forty tons; the town of Marblehead, perhaps, has principally large -ones. Suppose, then, a vessel of thirty tons obtains, in a season, six -hundred quintals of fish? (a very moderate voyage indeed,) her tonnage -is seventy-five dollars; the drawback on exportation would be -seventy-eight dollars; so that your Treasury retains three dollars gain -by this bill, which would be a loss on the drawback. - -Mr. Chairman, I think, upon the whole, that granting the encouragement -to the fishermen and their owners, held out in the bill, would prove -very beneficial to the United States; I hope, therefore, the section -before you will not be struck out. - -At this point, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again. - - -TUESDAY, February 7. - -_Ordered_, That the petitions of the tanners of the town of Newark, in -the State of New Jersey, which was presented yesterday, be referred to -Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. WHITE, Mr. THATCHER, Mr. BOURNE, of Rhode Island, and -Mr. NILES; that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same, -with their opinion thereupon, to the House. - -Mr. BENSON, from the committee appointed, presented a bill for an -apportionment of Representatives among the several States, according to -the first enumeration, and making provision for another enumeration, and -apportionment of Representatives thereon, to compose the House of -Representatives after the third day of March, 1797; which was received -and read the first time. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the -Treasury, accompanying his report stating the amount of the -subscriptions to the loans proposed by the act making provision for the -public debt, as well in the debts of the respective States as in the -domestic debt of the United States, and of the parts which remain -unsubscribed, together with such measures as are, in his opinion, -expedient to be taken on the subject, pursuant to an order of this House -of the 1st of November last; which were read, and ordered to be -committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next. - - -_The Fishery Bill_ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the encouragement of -the Bank and other Cod Fisheries, and for the regulation and government -of the fishermen employed therein." - -Mr. PAGE said no man in this House was more heartily disposed to -encourage the fisheries of the United States than he was; nor could any -one more sincerely wish to encourage the bold, active, and enterprising -adventurers in that branch of our commerce to persevere in it, than he -did; being sensible of the importance of their traffic in peace, and of -their defence of their country and annoyance of their enemies in war. -But, sir, (said Mr. P.,) I much doubt whether Congress can give that -encouragement to the fisheries to which they are entitled, and which -policy would lead the General Government to give, were it not restricted -by the constitution. I consider, sir, the constitution as intended to -remedy the defects of the Confederation to a certain degree; so far only -as would secure the independence and general welfare of the Confederated -States, without endangering the sovereignty and independence of the -individual States. Congress, therefore, was authorized to pay the debts -of the Union, and to regulate commerce, partly for that purpose, and -partly to prevent improper and dangerous commercial combinations, -jealousies, and altercations between the States. But Congress was not -intrusted with any regulation of exports which could admit of an -interposition which might be dictated by partiality; nor was Congress -permitted to lay any tax which could by any possibility operate -unequally on the States in general. It is said, indeed, that, if a -drawback be not allowed on the salt used in salting fish, there will be, -in fact, a duty on the exportation of the fish. But to this I think it -may be replied, that the constitution guards the exports of each State -against the possibility of a _partial_ restriction by Congress, or even -by the States themselves; that Congress cannot lay a duty on the -exportation of rice, indigo, tobacco, &c., or any other article exported -from any State, because this might be done to the injury of the State -where such duty would operate, and to the advantage and aggrandizement -of some particular States, its competitors more favored by the General -Government, or possessing more influence in the debates of Congress; and -that the States are also individually restrained from laying such duties -without the consent of Congress, to prevent acts which might produce -jealousies, commercial combinations, and, perhaps, at length, civil -dissensions. That this restriction, if it be intended to prevent -partiality, therefore, cannot extend to authorize drawbacks, which may -be productive of partial preferences and their consequent jealousies; -that if drawbacks be granted at all, they ought to be universally -extended to every article which is or can be exported from any of the -States, having in its composition a dutiable ingredient; that hence, -ships and other vessels, &c., should have drawbacks on the sails, -cordage, iron, &c.; but it may also be said that, as to the duty on -salt, that is amply repaid to the merchant by the price annexed to his -fish; the sums laid out in salt and fish together form a capital on -which he takes care to have a sufficient profit. Those merchants -employed in this traffic, if allowed a drawback, would have a preference -to other merchants, who import largely, pay heavy duties, and have no -other advantage than the usual advance on their goods. The exporter of -any article, with a drawback, must have an advantage over his -fellow-citizens, who purchase through necessity many dutiable articles, -and are obliged to consume them, without any other benefit than the use -of them. I mention this because it has been said (by Mr. AMES) that, -having made the men of Marblehead pay for salt, they have a right to -demand the money expended in that salt on the exportation of their fish; -for it would be as reasonable for the man who had ate his fish on which -his salt was expended, or who had used any other article for which he -had paid a duty, to claim of Congress a return of his money expended -therein, as the exporter of fish. The only difference is, that, if both -were paid the exact sum so expended by them, the exporter of fish would -get twice paid. The purchaser or consumer of his fish would pay him for -his salt therein, as if it were substantial fish, and the State for it -as mere salt. Here, then, is a field for partiality, discontent, and -complaints, which the constitution wisely guards against. It cannot, -therefore, be to any purpose to tell us that a bounty, or allowance, as -it is now called, is preferable to a drawback, as there is not so great -room for fraud in the one as in the other; nor can it be of importance -to show that the fishermen have not the profits to which they are -entitled. That their services in the last war deserve rewards, &c., -their country shared with them the glory of their gallant behavior; but -they alone received the rewards they aimed at. The twelve hundred ships -they took were a compensation for services and a reward for those -exploits. It is true, they annoyed the enemy; it is certain their prizes -sometimes fed, armed, and clothed our armies; but it is not said that -they did not receive payment for furnishing those things. - -But here we are asked, Is it not of great consequence to the United -States to employ those bold, skilful seamen in our service, that we may -enjoy the commercial advantage they give us in peace, and their powerful -assistance in war? To this I reply, that it ought first to be proved -that Congress has the power and authority to give them the encouragement -demanded; and even if Congress have that power, it ought to be shown -that it can be extended to the benefit of the sailors of some of the -States, and not to those of every State. It may be said that Congress -may with as much propriety give bounties to our hunters in the Western -country, to raise up a nursery of soldiers as a barrier against the -Indians, and to promote the fur trade, as to give drawbacks and bounties -to the fishermen of the Eastern States, with a view to encourage -fisheries, and to raise a nursery of seamen for their defence against -enemies who may invade our Eastern frontiers. Indeed, if defence be the -object in view, we might as well give bounties to sturdy landsmen to be -in readiness and constant training for war. - -Indeed, sir, I confess I am not altogether convinced, that, if Congress -have this power, it ought to be thus exerted; because it is not clear to -me that those fishermen would not be more profitable to the United -States, if they were cultivating the lands which now lie waste, and -raising families, which would be of ten times more value than their -fisheries. A nursery of virtuous families, which will produce soldiers, -sailors, husbandmen, and statesmen, must be preferable to a mere nursery -of sailors, who generally live single, and often perish at sea. I always -look upon the loss of a crew to an infant Republic as the loss almost of -a new State. - -I speak of this question, however, as a citizen of the United States, as -a member of this House. Were I to discuss it as a citizen of -Massachusetts, and in their Legislature, I should say, as the State is -nearly filled with inhabitants, and our fishermen increase our commerce -in peace, protect us in war, and, indeed, even enrich us by their -prizes, it is our interest to encourage them to the utmost, and to -prevent their going into the service of other countries. I might, -therefore, as a member of the Legislature of that State, do all in my -power to procure bounties for them, and indeed for all the sailors -belonging to that State; but I should not think of applying to Congress -for their assistance; not only because I doubt their right to afford it, -but because I should look upon it as in some degree derogatory to the -sovereignty and independence of the State. I should look upon such an -interference of Congress as a step towards swallowing up the powers of -the State Governments, and as consolidating the different States into -one Government, which the wise and virtuous in every State always -protested against as dangerous to their liberties; the fear of which -consolidation prevented many good men from voting for the adoption of -the new Government. - -The framers of the constitution guarded so much against a possibility of -such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to -grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the -granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing -could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interests of the -individual States than the encouragement which might be given to -ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and -sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to -the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if -judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, -magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise -framers of our constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of -exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, -Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; -might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the -views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one -State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a -powerful State, it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of -less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not -sufficient to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have -said, that Congress is incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that -they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell -them the constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and -to restrain abuses of mistaken powers. The constitution has been said by -some one to be, like answers of the oracles of old, capable of various -and opposite constructions; that it has been ingeniously contrived, like -some of them, to suit two events--a republican or a monarchical issue. I -will not pretend to say that this is not, in some instances, too just an -observation; nor will I undertake to deny that it was not the intention -of some of the Convention that such ambiguities might be in their -constitution, to correspond with the critical and ambiguous state of the -American mind respecting government; but I will boldly affirm, that, -whatever the theories of that day might lead some to think respecting -the application of monarchical principles to the Government of the -United States, no one can, at this day, pretend that they are applicable -to their circumstances, their dispositions, or interests, or even are -agreeable to the wishes of the people. Even before the adoption of the -constitution, when the rights of men had not been so thoroughly -investigated as they since have been, it must be remembered that whole -States, and large and respectable minorities in other States complained -of and objected to the aristocratical and monarchical features of the -new Government. In vain did the friends of the new Government--friends -of order, of union, or of liberty--contend that the powers granted by -the constitution which appeared so alarming were such as would never be -exerted but when all good men would acknowledge the necessity of -exercising them, and that, indeed, they would be explained or restrained -by some future amendments. The sagacious and eloquent HENRY shook his -head at such promises, sighed and submitted to the will of the -majority--a small one indeed--but foretold, from his knowledge of the -human heart, what would be done and said in justification of every -measure which might extend the power of Congress. - -Is it politic and wise, then, Mr. Chairman, to exert the power contended -for, even if it be authorized by the constitution? May not the -interferences of Congress in the business of regulating the trade of the -Eastern States, excite, if not envy on account of a supposed partiality, -a jealousy lest Congress undertake to intermeddle in the commercial -regulations of other States? May not Congress with equal propriety, -undertake to regulate the tobacco, the rice, and indigo trade, as well -as that of the fisheries? If they intermeddle in the business of -sailors, why not in that of manufacturers and farmers? Where, I may ask -with my colleague, may they not go on in their zeal, and, I may add, in -their laudable pursuit, of promoting the general welfare--and how -totally may they be mistaken? If jealousy of rival States, instead of -mutual satisfaction and pleasure--if distrust and suspicion of Congress, -instead of confidence in their measures, be the consequence--how will -the Union be promoted, or the General Government secured? However -virtuously disposed the present members may be, (and I am ready to -applaud their honest intentions,) let them consider, sir, that they had -better suppress their patriotic emotions, than give a pretext for their -successors to abuse the powers which they now wish to exert for the -public good. I know they will quote the opinion of as wise and virtuous -a citizen as is in the United States. I know his patriotism, and know -well his true Republican principles; but, sir, with the freedom of a -fellow-citizen, I take the liberty of saying, that his honest zeal, like -that of the friends of the bill, has led him into a mistake.[43] That -able statesman and virtuous citizen, like the eloquent advocates of the -bill, has considered the acts now quoted as a full sanction for the one -before the committee. But I am of opinion, that those acts had better be -repealed than give a sanction to the enacting of a law which goes to the -establishing of bounties, or drawbacks, or by whatever other name they -are called, which may be used to the partial encouragement of any branch -of trade or employment whatsoever. I shall therefore vote against the -bill before us, and, to get rid of it shall vote for striking out of it -the first section, according to the motion now before the committee. As -a member of this House, I shall think it my duty to protect the -fisheries, and every other branch of our commerce, the fisherman as well -as every other citizen, as far as may be within my ability; but I am not -permitted, as a member of Congress, I humbly conceive, to select the -fisheries and fishermen as objects of more consequence than any other -branches of trade, or persons employed in them, lest Congress should not -only show a mistaken attachment, or, even if judiciously placed, excite -jealousies and discontents between the States, and distrust, destructive -of their weight and influence. My constant wish has been to see Congress -confined to such acts as would form a more perfect union, promote the -general welfare, ensure domestic tranquillity, and engage the confidence -of our fellow-citizens. - -My wish is, that the members of Congress would leave their respective -States in the full enjoyment of every right and privilege they held -before their adoption of the new constitution, which can be exercised -without prejudice to the General Government. Let the Legislatures of the -different States encourage, as far as in their power, the commerce, -agriculture, or manufactures of their respective States? and let -Congress, as far as can be consistent with the most steady impartiality, -patronize their patriotic exertions, by wise regulations of their -commerce with foreign nations, such as may open as full an intercourse -with those nations as the States may desire. The emulation of the sister -States in commerce, manufactures, or agriculture, would lead to the -early establishment of that branch of either to which each State might -be best adapted. This rivalship could produce no jealousy, no general -national discontent in the States, no localities in Congress. Virginia -would not attempt to rival Massachusetts in her fisheries or carrying -business, nor will South Carolina and Georgia rival the manufactories of -New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Each State may rejoice to see its sister -States enjoying the advantages with which Heaven has blessed them; and -Congress, if confined to subjects which admit not of local -considerations, may debate with temper and decide with unbiased -judgment. I confess I have wished that Congress possessed the power that -the friends of the bill tell us we do possess, and tell us we have -exerted; but, on examining the constitution with a view to my wish, I -found reason to think, not only that Congress has not that power, but -that it ought not to possess it, unless the constitution was intended to -establish a consolidated Government on the ruin of the State -Legislatures; but this, I conceive, cannot be the case, because the -constitution guarantees to the States their respective Republican -Governments. The general powers of Congress, no doubt, ought to be (as -they are) adequate to the purpose of forming a more _perfect union_ than -subsisted under the Confederation, to establish justice, &c.; but, as -they are bound to guarantee to the States their respective Republican -forms of Government, I cannot conceive how any of these powers can be -employed, consistently with the ends for which they were given, in -diminishing the power and sovereignty of the State Legislatures. How -Congress can interfere in the regulations respecting the merchants and -their sailors at Marblehead with more propriety than with those at -Philadelphia, Norfolk, or Charleston, I cannot conceive; nor how this -interference could take place without alarming those States, I know not. -Viewing the bill before us in this light, Mr. Chairman, I shall vote -against it, and, as I said before, to get rid of it, shall vote to -strike out the first section, according to the motion now before the -committee. - -The question on striking out the first section was taken, and -negatived--32 to 26. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 8. - -A message was received from the President of the United States, together -with a statement of certain articles of expense, which have occurred in -the Department of Foreign Affairs, and for which no provision is made by -law. [The expense alluded to was incurred for the relief of a number of -American sailors, impressed in England to serve on board the British -navy.] The message and accompanying papers were referred to a select -committee, to examine and report. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, -accompanying certain communications with the Executive of Virginia -relative to the existing temporary defensive protection of the exposed -frontiers of that State, pursuant to the orders of the President of the -United States; which were read, and ordered to lie on the table. - -Mr. WHITE, from the committee appointed, presented a bill providing for -the settlement of the claims of persons under particular circumstances -barred by the limitations heretofore established; which was read twice -and committed. - -Mr. BENSON, from the committee to whom was referred the report of the -Secretary of the Treasury on the petition of Comfort Sands, and others, -made a report; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. - -_The Cod Fisheries._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on -the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the encouragement of -the Bank and other Cod Fisheries, and for the regulation and government -of the fishermen employed therein." - -On a motion to strike out the words "bounty now allowed," and insert -_allowance now made_, &c.-- - -Mr. GILES observed, that he conceived the vote of yesterday against -striking out the first section, was a decision in favor of the policy of -granting Governmental aid to the fisheries; the inquiry of to-day will -be on what terms this aid shall be granted? He felt but little regret at -the decision of yesterday, because he had himself previously -contemplated some reasons, not unimportant, to justify that decision, -and others had been suggested by several gentlemen in the course of the -debate. The principles of this policy, he thought, however, might be -combated by reasons of at least equal, and as far as he was able to -judge, of paramount importance; but as he admitted considerable weight -in the reasons on each side of the question, he was not particularly -tenacious of the preference which his own opinion suggested. When he -first mentioned his doubts respecting the principle of the bill, it was -with diffidence, and those doubts in some measure arose from an idea -that the bill contained a direct bounty upon occupation; upon a more -minute examination, he thought the term bounty unnecessarily introduced -into the bill, and that the object of it could be answered without the -use of terms, which might hereafter be deemed to contain a decision upon -the general principle of the constitutional right to grant bounties; it -was to avoid any thing which might wear the appearance of such a -decision, that induced him to make the present motion. - -He proceeded to remark, that as great a difference of opinion often -existed respecting the precise meaning of the terms used, as the -consequences which flow from them after attaining such precision of -meaning; and it is of importance to the present discussion that an -accurate definition of the terms used in the bill, and those proposed to -be used, should be had. The avowed object of the bill is not to -increase, but to transmute the sum, or a portion thereof, now allowed to -the fisheries in lieu of the drawback upon salt, from the merchant who -is now supposed to receive the sole benefit, to the fishermen really -employed in the fishing vessels. This is a mere chimerical project, but -if it be admitted that this is the object to be effected by the bill, -the term bounty is improperly applied. - -A gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. AMES,) who rests the defence of -this bill almost solely upon this position, that those who receive the -benefit intended by it, are of right entitled to such benefit in -consideration of a previous advancement in value, and that this bill -contains a mere permission to them to retain their own, has at the same -time declared, that he thought the term bounty the most proper and -technical, to convey this idea. In this, the gentleman appears to have -deviated from his usual accuracy. A bounty is the granting a benefit -without a correspondent return in value; a drawback is the retaking of -something in consideration of a previous advancement; this is always -founded upon a consideration previously received--that is a grant of -favor _ex mero motu_. But the great characteristic distinction between -bounties and drawbacks as they essentially relate to the administration -of this Government consists in the governmental objects to which they -may severally be applied: drawbacks are necessarily confined to -commercial regulations; bounties may be extended to every possible -object of Government, and may pervade the whole minutiæ of police. They -may not only be extended to commerce, but to _learning_, _agriculture_, -_manufactures_, and even the _sacredness_ of religion will be found too -feeble to furnish complete protection from their influence. The people -of the United States have always been scrupulously tenacious of a -constitutional security for the most free and equal exercises of this -right, but through the medium of bounties, even this right may be -invaded, and the only security against such invasion must be -_governmental discretion_. The same characteristic distinction will -attend that _species_ of bounty which may incidentally result from -commercial regulations; and direct bounties upon occupation founded upon -the broad basis of discretionary right. The specification in the -constitution of the right to regulate commerce, may possibly in some -cases give rise to this indirect species of bounty, not from any right -in the constitution to grant bounties, but as the necessary result from -the specified right to make commercial regulations; and this -specification can be the only foundation of justification to this -indirect species of bounty; but there is no specification in the -constitution of a right to regulate _learning_, or _agriculture_, -_manufactures_, or _religion_, and so far as the sense of the -constitution can be collected, it rather forbids than authorizes the -exercise of that right. - -Arguments used to deduce any given authority from the term _general -welfare_, abstractedly from the specification of some particular -authority, are dangerous in the extreme to rights constitutionally -reserved, and ought ever to be viewed with great caution and suspicion. -They serve directly to show that this Government is not only -consolidated in all its parts, but that it is a consolidated Government -of unlimited discretion; that it contains no constitutional limitation -or restriction. If any given authority be inferred from the term -_general welfare_ in the abstract, any other authority is equally -deducible from it, because the term is applicable to every possible -object of Government, and differs only in degree, as to the several -Governmental objects. - -He could not see the force of the novel and curious distinction taken by -a gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. HILLHOUSE) between _general welfare_ -and _particular welfare_; for every particular welfare, however minute, -may be in a degree for the general welfare, and if the decision -respecting the existence of this distinction, have no other limitation -than Congressional discretion, it is equally destructive of all -constitutional restraint. Gentlemen who have advocated this principle of -construction, appear startled at some consequences suggested to result -from it, and have denied that they have made the admission of such -consequences. This is true, nor have those in reply so asserted, but -they have taken up the principles of construction furnished by its -advocates, and made the application of it to the consequences which they -themselves infer; and if the principle be admitted, it is undeniable -that the conclusions drawn from it will necessarily follow in their -utmost latitude. - -A gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. BARNWELL) confidently spoke of the -inherent rights of this Government; this is a new source of authority, -and totally inapplicable to this Government. If there be inherent rights -in governments at all, they must belong to governments growing out of a -state of society, and not to a government deriving all its authorities -by charter from previously existing governments, or the people of those -governments. In such a government, the exercise of every authority not -contained in the instrument, or deducible from it by a fair and candid -construction, is an unjustifiable assumption and usurpation. He did not -mean to analyze this subject further at this time, and had been led into -these general remarks, because the impatience of the committee to have -the question upon striking out the section had caused him to refrain -from delivering these sentiments at that time. - -He would remark further, that bounties in all countries and at all -times, have been the effect of favoritism; they have only served to -divert the current of industry from its natural channel, into one less -advantageous or productive; and in fact, they are nothing more than -governmental _thefts_ committed upon the rights of one part of the -community, and an _unmerited_ governmental _munificence_ to the other. -In this country, and under this Government, they present an aspect -peculiarly _dreadful_ and _deformed_. - -To contemplate the subjects upon which bounties are to operate in the -United States, the nature of the Government to dispense them, the State -preferences which now do and will for ever, more or less, continue to -exist, the impossibility of an equal operation of bounties throughout -the United States, upon any subject whatever, should be considered; and -one of these two effects will necessarily follow the exercise of them; -either the very existence of the Government will be destroyed, or its -administration must be radically changed, it must be converted into the -most complex system of tyranny and favoritism. - -He observed, that it is not unfrequent at this time to hear of an -Eastern and Southern interest, and he had for some time silently and -indignantly seen, or thought he saw, attempts by this means to influence -the deliberations of this House upon almost every important question. -So far as he was the insulted object of these attempts, he felt that -contempt for their authors, which appeared to him to be the -correspondent tribute to the impurity of their designs; yet he thought -that this had been the most formidable and effectual _ministerial -machine_ which had been yet used in the administration of Government. -But one great mischief he apprehended from establishing the principle of -the unrestrained right to grant bounties, will be, that it will make the -difference of interest between Eastern and Southern, so far as they -differ in their respective States of manufacture and agriculture, real, -which is now only ideal. It will make that party real, which is now -artificial. The jealousies and suspicions arising from _party_, will -then have a substantial foundation, which now have no foundation in -fact, but are ingeniously stimulated by a few, for the purpose of -effecting particular objects; as long as the Government shall be -administered liberally and impartially, as long as the principle of -reciprocal demand and supply between East and South shall remain -inviolate, so long there can exist no essential distinct interest -between them; but the instant bounties or governmental preferences are -granted to occupation, that instant is created a separate and distinct -interest, not wholly between East and South, but between the -manufacturer and the cultivator of the soil. There will still exist a -community of agricultural interests throughout the United States, and he -hoped the time was not far distant, when a common sympathy will be felt -by the whole of that class of the community. For these reasons, he hoped -the motion would prevail. - -The bill having been gone through with, and amended, the committee rose -and reported it with amendments which the House immediately took into -consideration and adopted. The bill was then further amended and the -House adjourned. - - -THURSDAY, February 9. - -_The Cod Fisheries._ - -The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the encouragement of -the Bank and other Cod Fisheries, and for the regulation and government -of the fishermen employed therein," together with the amendments -thereto, was read the third time; and the question being put that the -same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 38, nays 21, as -follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, - Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, - Abraham Clark, Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge - Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, - Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, Thomas Hartley, James - Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, John W. Kittera, John Laurance, - Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Samuel Livermore, James - Madison, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg Nathaniel Niles, - Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, - William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, Peter - Sylvester, George Thatcher, Thomas Tredwell, John Vining, - Jeremiah Wadsworth, and Artemas Ward. - - NAYS.--Messrs. John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, John - Brown, William B. Giles, William Barry Grove, Daniel - Heister, Philip Key, Nathaniel Macon, John Francis Mercer, - Andrew Moore, William Vans Murray, John Page, Josiah - Parker, Joshua Seney, John Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas - Tudor Tucker, Abraham Venable, Alexander White, Hugh - Williamson, and Francis Willis. - -_Resolved_, That the title of the said bill be, "An act concerning -certain fisheries of the United States, and for the regulation and -government of the fishermen employed therein." - -Mr. LAURANCE presented a petition from the tanners and curriers of the -city of New York, praying relief from the hardships they labor under, in -consequence of the exportation of tanners' bark. Referred to a select -committee. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 22. - -_Indemnity to Gen. Greene's Estate._ - -On a motion made and seconded, that the House do come to the following -resolution: - - "Whereas the late Major General Nathaniel Greene, on the - eighth day of April, one thousand seven hundred and - eighty-three, the more effectually to procure rations, and - supplies for the Southern Army of the United States, became - bound as surety for John Banks & Company to Newcomen & - Collet, merchants in Charleston, for the payment of eight - thousand seven hundred and forty-three pounds fifteen - shillings and sixpence, sterling money, being the condition - of said bond: - - "And whereas, on the first day of May, one thousand seven - hundred and eighty-six, the balance of principal and - interest of said bond, being then eight thousand six - hundred and eighty-eight pounds six shillings sterling, was - paid by the said General Greene: Therefore, - - "_Resolved_, That the United States shall indemnify the - estate of the said General Greene for the said sum last - mentioned, and the interest thereof: _Provided_, The - Executors of the said General Greene shall account for a - sum, being about two thousand pounds, be the same more or - less, received of John Ferrie, one of the partners of the - said Banks & Company, to be in part of the indemnification - aforesaid; and also shall make over, for the use of the - United States, all mortgages, bonds, covenants, or other - counter-securities whatsoever, now due, which were obtained - by the said General Greene in his lifetime, from the said - Banks & Company on account of his being surety for them as - aforesaid, to be sued for in the name of the said - executors, for the use of the United States:" - -_Ordered_, That the said resolution be committed to a Committee of the -whole House immediately. - -The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the whole -House on the said resolution; and, after some time spent therein, the -committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. - - -SATURDAY, March 10. - -_Courtesies to France._ - -On a motion made and seconded, that the House do come to the following -resolution: - - "_Resolved_, That this House hath received, with sentiments - of high satisfaction, the notification of the King of the - French, of his acceptance of the constitution presented to - him in the name of the Nation; and that the President of - the United States be requested, in his answer to the said - notification, to express the sincere participation of the - House in the interests of the French Nation, on this great - and important event; and their wish that the wisdom and - magnanimity displayed in the formation and acceptance of - the constitution, may be rewarded by the most perfect - attainment of its object, the permanent happiness of so - great a people." - -It was moved and seconded that the said motion be committed. And on the -question for commitment, it passed in the negative--yeas 17, nays 35. - -And then debate arising on the said motion, a division thereof was -called for. Whereupon, - -The question being put, that the House do agree to the first part of the -said motion, in the words following: - - "_Resolved_, That this House has received, with sentiments - of high satisfaction, the notification of the King of the - French, of his acceptance of the constitution presented to - him in the name of the Nation: And that the President of - the United States be requested, in his answer to the said - notification, to express the sincere participation of the - House in the interests of the French Nation, on this great - and important event:" - -It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 50, nays 2, as follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, - Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, William Findlay, Thomas - Fitzsimons, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin - Goodhue, James Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel - Heister, James Hillhouse, Israel Jacobs, Philip Key, Aaron - Kitchell, John W. Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, - Richard Bland Lee, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, James - Madison, John Francis Mercer, William Vans Murray, - Nathaniel Niles, John Page, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, - Theodore Sedgwick, Joshua Seney, Jeremiah Smith, Israel - Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Samuel Sterrett, - Jonathan Sturges, Thomas Sumter, George Thatcher, Thomas - Tredwell, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Abraham Venable, John - Vining, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, Anthony Wayne, - Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and Francis Willis. - - NAYS.--Robert Barnwell and Egbert Benson. - -On the question, that the House do agree to the second part of the said -motion, in the words following: - - "And their wish that the wisdom and magnanimity displayed - in the formation and acceptance of the constitution, may be - rewarded by the most perfect attainment of its object, the - permanent happiness of so great a people:" - -It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 35, nays 16. - -_Ordered_, That Mr. TUCKER, Mr. MADISON, Mr. MERCER, Mr. VINING, and -Mr. PAGE, be appointed a committee to wait on the President of the -United States, with the said resolution. - - -SATURDAY, March 24. - -_Establishment of a Mint._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -bill sent from the Senate, entitled, "An act establishing a Mint, and -regulating the coins of the United States." The following amendment -being under consideration, viz: - - "In the tenth section, strike out the words, '_Or - representation of the head of the President of the United - States for the time being, with an inscription, which shall - express the initial or first letter of his Christian or - first name, and his surname at length, the succession of - the Presidency numerically_,' and, in lieu thereof, insert, - 'Emblematic of Liberty,' with an inscription of the word - LIBERTY." - -Mr. PAGE, in support of this motion said, that it had been a practice in -monarchies to exhibit the figures or heads of their kings upon their -coins, either to hand down, in the ignorant ages in which this practice -was introduced, a kind of chronological account of their kings, or to -show to whom the coin belonged. We have all read, that the Jews paid -tribute to the Romans, by means of a coin on which was the head of their -Cæsar. Now as we have no occasion for this aid to history, nor any -pretence to call the money of the United States the money of our -Presidents, there can be no sort of necessity for adopting the idea of -the Senate. I second the motion, therefore, for the amendment proposed; -and the more readily because I am certain it will be more agreeable to -the citizens of the United States, to see the head of Liberty on their -coin, than the heads of Presidents. However well pleased they might be -with the head of the great man now their President, they may have no -great reason to be pleased with some of his successors; as to him, they -have his busts, his pictures every where; historians are daily -celebrating his fame, and Congress have voted him a monument. A further -compliment they need not pay him, especially when it may be said, that -no Republic has paid such a compliment to its Chief Magistrate; and when -indeed it would be viewed by the world as a stamp of royalty on our -coins: would wound the feelings of many friends, and gratify our -enemies. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON seconded the motion also, and affirmed that the Romans -did not put the heads of their Consuls on their money; that Julius Cæsar -wished to have his on the Roman coin, but only ventured to cause the -figure of an elephant to be impressed thereon; that by a pun on the -Carthaginian name of that animal, which sounded like the name of Cæsar, -he might be said to be on the coin. He thought the amendment consistent -with Republican principles, and therefore approved of it. - -Mr. LIVERMORE ridiculed, with an uncommon degree of humor, the idea -that it could be of any consequence to the United States whether the -head of Liberty were on their coins or not; the President was a very -good emblem of Liberty; but what an emblematical figure might be, he -could not tell. A ghost had been said to be in the shape of the sound of -a drum, and so might Liberty for aught he knew; but how the President's -head being on our coins could affect the liberty of the people, was -incomprehensible to him. He hoped, therefore, that the amendment would -be rejected. - -Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, agreed with Mr. LIVERMORE in opinion; -adding, that the President representing the people of the United States, -might with great propriety represent them on their coins. He denied that -Republics did not place the images of their Chief Magistrates on their -coins; and said, he was surprised that a member who so much admired the -French and their new constitution, should be so averse to a practice -they have established; the head of their King is by their constitution -put upon their money. Besides, it was strange that for a circumstance so -trivial we should lose time in debating, and risk the loss of an -important bill. - -The said amendment was again read, and a division of the question -thereon called for: Whereupon, - -The question being taken, that the House do agree to the first part of -the said amendment, for striking out the words "or representation of the -head of the President of the United States for the time being, with an -inscription, which shall express the initial or first letter of his -Christian or first name, and his surname at length, the succession of -the Presidency numerically:"--it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas -26, nays 22. - -And then the question being taken that the House do agree to the second -part of the said amendment, for inserting, in lieu of the words stricken -out, the words, "Emblematic of liberty, with an inscription of the word -Liberty:"--it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 42, nays 6. - - -MONDAY, March 26. - -_Establishment of a Mint._ - -A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate disagree to -the amendment proposed by this House to the bill entitled "An act -establishing a Mint, and regulating the coins of the United States;" and -agree to the amendment proposed by this House to the bill entitled "An -act supplemental to the act for making further and more effectual -provision for the protection of the frontiers of the United States." - -It was moved that the House should recede from their amendment to the -bill entitled "An act establishing a Mint, and regulating the coins of -the United States." - -Mr. LIVERMORE supported the motion. He said, he did not conceive it -possible that and friend to the President of the United States, the -Chief Magistrate, that great and good man, would have refused to pay -every tribute of respect which was justly due to him. We have now a -favorable opportunity of complimenting him, without any shadow of -flattery, and without any expense. But, instead of this, what is -proposed? An emblematical figure of Liberty. But what is this liberty -which some appear to be so fond of? He had no idea of such liberty as -appears to possess the minds of some gentlemen. It is little better than -the liberty of savages--a relinquishment of all law that contradicts or -thwarts their passions or desires. His idea of liberty was that which -arose from law and justice, which secured every man in his proper and -social rights. Some gentlemen may think a bear broke loose from his -chain a fit emblem of liberty; others may devise a different emblem; but -he could not conceive that any of them would be applicable to the -situation of the United States, which justly boasted of being always -free. If any idea of an emblem is necessary, he thought it might be -applied to the head of the President of the United States. The present -occasion affords the best opportunity of doing honor to the man we love; -instead of which, we offer him an affront. He could not reconcile this -conduct to propriety or consistency; for, while it is proposed to raise -a monument to the memory of the President, which will cost fifty -thousand guineas, a proposition to honor him in a more effectual manner, -and in a way which will be satisfactory to the people, without any -expense, and with perfect security to their liberties, is objected to. -He hoped the House would recede. - -Mr. MERCER replied to Mr. LIVERMORE with some degree of asperity. He -observed that there was a rule in the British House of Commons that the -name of the King should never be mentioned in any debate. He thought -some such rule might be introduced with advantage into this House. In -the course of his remarks, to show that the circumstance of having the -President's head stamped on the coin could not be justly considered as -doing him an honor, he said, that persons of no better character than a -Nero, a Caligula, or a Heliogabalus, may enjoy it as well as a Trajan, -&c. - -Mr. SENEY animadverted with severity on the remarks offered by Mr. -LIVERMORE, and on the conduct of the Senate; particularly in returning -the bill with a negative to the amendment of the House, within a period -that left them no time to deliberate on the reasons which might have -influenced the House. - -Mr. GILES opposed the motion for receding. He adverted to the ideas -which are connected with the subject in European countries. The -President's head will not designate the Government. There is to be but -one head; but does not our Government consist of three parts? Is there -any other head proposed to be on the coin but the President's? He said -this circumstance was of a piece with the first act of the Senate. It -had a near affinity to titles, that darling child of the Senate, which -has been put to nurse, with an intention that it shall be announced at -some future period in due form. - -Mr. BENSON said, he supposed he should be extremely disorderly were he -to mention the motives which influenced the Senate in their discussions. -He knew not what they were, nor was it of importance that he should. He -then observed, that plain pieces of metal will not answer for money; -some impression is necessary to guard against counterfeits. The Senate -have determined what the device shall be; but the House, by their -amendment, have left the matter entirely to the judgment of the artist, -who may form such an emblem as suits his fancy. Mr. B. ridiculed the -idea of the people's being enslaved by their Presidents, and much less -by his image on their coin. - -Mr. PAGE replied that he was sorry to find that some gentlemen -endeavored to ridicule Republican cautions. He thought it both -indelicate and inconsistent with their situations, as well as highly -impolitic. He confessed that, as long as the people were sensible of the -blessings of liberty, and had their eyes open to watch encroachments, -they would not be enslaved; but if they should ever shut them, or become -inattentive to their interests and the true principles of a free -government, they, like other nations, might lose their liberties; that -it was the duty of the members of that House to keep the eyes of their -constituents open, and to watch over their liberties. It was therefore -unbecoming a member to treat with levity and to ridicule any sentiment -which had that tendency. For his part, he thought it the peculiar duty -of the Representative of a free people to put them upon their guard -against any thing which could possibly endanger their liberties. That -with this view he warned his constituents of the danger, not merely of -imitating the flattery and almost idolatrous practice of Monarchies with -respect to the honor paid to their Kings, by impressing their images and -names on their coins, but he wished to add as few incentives as possible -to competitors for the President's place. He warned his country against -the cabals, the corruption, and animosities, which might be excited by -the intrigues of ambitious men, animated with the hope of handing their -names down to the latest ages on the medals of their country. But this -indiscriminate honor is unworthy of the President's acceptance. A Nero, -a Caligula, a Heliogabalus, it has been observed, (by Mr. MERCER,) may -enjoy it as well as a Trajan. To apply it to the present Chief -Magistrate, alone, would be less exceptionable. But this would be highly -improper; for, if he should pass an act for this purpose, it might blast -his reputation. I am of opinion that the Senate knew his delicacy would -not permit him to pass such a one. They have therefore extended the -compliment to all his successors. We are under obligations to the great -man now our President; but a lover of liberty and friend to the rights -of man would be cautious how he showed his sense of that obligation. As -a friend to the President, I am unwilling to offer him a compliment -which, if accepted, might damn his reputation. Were I in his place, I -would cut off my hand rather than it should sign the act as it now -stands. Were I his greatest enemy, I should wish him to pass it as it -was passed by the Senate. Sir, I am as much his friend as the member -from New Hampshire, and have shown, at proper times and places, that I -was so. I am too sensible of the honor our President has acquired to -suppose that an unbecoming compliment can in any degree contribute to -its increase. I hope, therefore, the amendment which the House has made -will not be receded from. - -The question being now put, that this House doth recede from the said -amendment, it passed in the negative--yeas 24, nays 32, as follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias - Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Thomas - Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin - Goodhue, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, - Israel Jacobs, John W. Kittera, Amasa Learned, Samuel - Livermore, Theodore Sedgwick, William Smith, Jonathan - Sturges, Peter Sylvester, George Thatcher, Jeremiah - Wadsworth, and Artemas Ward. - - NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, John Brown, - Abraham Clark, William B. Giles, James Gordon, Andrew - Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, - Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel - Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, - William Vans Murray, Nathaniel Niles, John Page, Josiah - Parker, Joshua Seney, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, John - Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor - Tucker, Abraham Venable, John Vining, Alexander White, and - Hugh Williamson. - -_Resolved_, That this House doth adhere to the said amendment. - -_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do acquaint the Senate -therewith. - - -TUESDAY, March 27. - -A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate recede from -their disagreement to the amendment adhered to by this House to the bill -entitled "An act establishing a Mint, and regulating the coins of the -United States." - - -WEDNESDAY, April 4. - -_General Nathaniel Greene._ - -The House proceeded to consider the resolution reported from the -Committee of the whole House on the 24th of February last, to indemnify -the estate of the late General Nathaniel Greene for a certain suretyship -entered into by the said Nathaniel Greene, in his lifetime, on the -public behalf. Whereupon, the said resolution being read at the Clerk's -table, as follows: - - "Whereas, the late Major General Nathaniel Greene, on the - 8th day of April, 1783, the more effectually to procure - _rations_ and supplies for the Southern Army of the United - States, became bound as surety for John Banks & Co., to - Newcomen & Collet, merchants in Charleston, for the payment - of £8,743 15_s._ 6_d._, sterling money, being the condition - of the said bond: - - "And whereas, on the 1st of May, 1786, the balance of - principal and interest of said bond, being then £8,688 - 6_s._ sterling, was paid by the said General Greene. - Therefore, - - "_Resolved_, That the United States shall indemnify the - estate of the said General Greene for the said sum last - mentioned, and the interest thereof, or for such sum as, - upon due investigation by the officers of the Treasury of - the transactions between John Banks & Co., with Messrs. - Newcomen & Collet, in which General Greene was security for - said Banks & Co., it shall appear that neither General - Greene nor his executors shall have received any payment or - compensation for: _Provided_, The executors of the said - General Greene shall account for a sum being about £2,000, - be the same more or less, recovered by John Ferrie, one of - the partners of the said John Banks & Co., to be in part of - the indemnification aforesaid; and also shall make over for - the use of the United States, all mortgages, bonds, - covenants, or other counter-securities whatsoever, now due, - which were obtained by the said General Greene, in his - lifetime, from the said Banks & Co., on account of his - being surety for them as aforesaid, to be sued for in the - name of the said executors, for the use of the United - States." - -The previous question thereon was called for by five members, to wit: -"Shall the main question, to agree to the said resolution, be now put?" -And on the previous question, "Shall the main question be now put?" it -was resolved in the affirmative. And then the main question, "That the -House do agree to the said resolution?" being put, it was resolved in -the affirmative--yeas 29, nays 26, as follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell, - Egbert Benson, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, William - Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Andrew Gregg, - Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, Philip Key, John W. - Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, - Samuel Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William - Vans Murray, John Page, Theodore Sedgwick, Upton Sheridine, - William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, George Thatcher, John - Vining, Jeremiah Wadsworth, and Francis Willis. - - NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Elias Boudinot, John Brown, - Abraham Clark, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin - Goodhue, James Gordon, William Barry Grove, James - Hillhouse, Israel Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, Nathaniel Macon, - Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Niles, Joshua Seney, Jeremiah - Smith, Israel Smith, John Steele, Jonathan Sturges, Thomas - Sumter, Peter Sylvester, Thomas Tredwell, Artemas Ward, - Alexander White, and Hugh Williamson. - -_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said -resolution, and that Mr. LIVERMORE, Mr. PAGE, and Mr. BARNWELL, do -prepare and bring in the same. - - -THURSDAY, April 5. - -_Apportionment Bill._ - -A message was received from the President of the United States returning -to the House the bill passed by the two Houses entitled "An act for an -Apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to -the first Enumeration," and presented to the President for his -approbation on Monday, the 26th of March; to which bill the President -having made objections, the said objections were read, and ordered to be -entered at large on the Journal, as follows: - - "UNITED STATES, _April 5, 1792_." - - _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_ - - "I have maturely considered the act passed by the two - Houses entitled 'An act for an Apportionment of - Representatives among the several States, according to the - first Enumeration;' and I return it to your House, wherein - it originated, with the following objections: - - "First. The constitution has prescribed that - Representatives shall be apportioned among the several - States according to their respective numbers; and there is - no one proportion or divisor which, applied to the - respective numbers of the States, will yield the number and - allotment of Representatives proposed by the bill. - - "Second. The constitution has also provided that the number - of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty - thousand; which restriction is, by the context, and by fair - and obvious construction, to be applied to the separate and - respective numbers of the States; and the bill has allotted - to eight of the States more than one for every thirty - thousand. - - "G. WASHINGTON." - -_Resolved_, That to-morrow be assigned for the reconsideration of the -said bill, in the mode prescribed by the Constitution of the United -States. - - -FRIDAY, April 6. - -_Apportionment Bill._ - -The House proceeded to reconsider the bill passed by the two Houses -entitled "An act for an Apportionment of Representatives among the -several States, according to the first Enumeration," which was presented -for approbation on Monday, the 26th of March, and returned by the -President yesterday, with objections. - -The said bill was read, and is as follows: - - "An act for an Appointment of Representatives among the - several States, according to the first Enumeration. - - "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives - of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, - That, from and after the 3d day of March, in the year one - thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, the House of - Representatives shall be composed of one hundred and twenty - members, elected within the several States, according to - the following apportionment, that is to say: Within the - State of New Hampshire, five; within the State of - Massachusetts, sixteen; within the State of Vermont, three; - within the State of Rhode Island, two; within the State of - Connecticut, eight; within the State of New York, eleven: - within the State of New Jersey, six; within the State of - Pennsylvania, fourteen; within the State of Delaware, two; - within the State of Maryland, nine; within the State of - Virginia, twenty-one; within the State of Kentucky, two; - within the State of North Carolina, twelve; within the - State of South Carolina, seven; and within the State of - Georgia, two. - - "JONATHAN TRUMBULL, - - "_Speaker of the House of Representatives._ - - "JOHN ADAMS, - - "_Vice President U. S. and President of Senate._" - -The President's objections were also read; and, after debate on the -subject-matter of the said bill, the question "That the House, on -reconsideration, do agree to pass the bill," was determined in the mode -prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, and passed in the -negative--yeas 23, nays 33, as follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Egbert Benson, Shearjashub Bourne, - Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge - Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, - Thomas Hartley, Israel Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, John W. - Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, Samuel Livermore, - Nathaniel Niles, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Theodore - Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, John Steele, George - Thatcher, Thomas Tredwell, John Vining, Jeremiah Wadsworth, - and Artemas Ward. - - NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell, - John Brown, William Findlay, William B. Giles, Andrew - Gregg, Samuel Griffin, Wm. Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, - James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Philip Key, Richard Bland - Lee, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, - Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans - Murray, John Page, Josiah Parker, Joshua Seney, Upton - Sheridine, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan - Sturges, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Abraham - Venable, Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and Francis - Willis. - -And so the bill was rejected, two-thirds of the House not agreeing to -pass the same. - - -MONDAY, April 9. - -_Apportionment Bill._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -bill for an Apportionment of Representatives among the several States, -according to the first Enumeration; at the ratio of one for every ---- -thousand persons, in the respective States. - -Mr. GILES observed, that, although this subject has been heretofore -thoroughly discussed, and the minds of gentlemen probably fatigued with -the discussion, yet he could not help trespassing upon the patience of -the committee, by mentioning some of the principal reasons which would -influence his vote against the motion, and in favor of that ratio which -will afford the greatest number of Representatives authorized by the -constitution. He was induced to do this from an opinion that, in the -usual course of things, arguments will have an effect upon the public -mind in some measure proportioned to their own solidity, and the purity -of the motives which actuate them. That the compound of these qualities -form a common standard, by which all arguments would and ought to be -measured by the great majority of the people; and he had no objections -to submitting his reasons to the application of this common standard; he -meant, however, to confine himself to general remarks, and not to -fatigue the committee unnecessarily with minute exemplification of them. - -He proceeded by observing, that the expression in the constitution -induced and justified the general expectation among the people of the -United States, that one Representative for every thirty thousand persons -was secured to them by the constitution; that a definitive certainty in -the number of Representatives, as well as the manner of procuring them, -is, in its nature, of constitutional and not of legislative provision, -and affords a reason against varying the ratio mentioned in the -constitution, although that ratio be expressed in terms of latitude; -that Congress had confirmed the general expectation in the public mind -by the proposed amendments to the constitution, and had at least given a -solemn opinion in favor of the ratio of one to thirty thousand, until -the number of Representatives should amount to one hundred, after -acquiring which number by that rule only, a qualified discretion is -admitted; that the opinions of the great bulk of the people of America -were in favor of an increased representation, at least as far as the -utmost limits prescribed by the constitution; that this circumstance was -evidenced by the conventions which adopted the constitution; that it was -further evidenced by the several Legislatures which adopted the proposed -amendments before alluded to; that it was still further evidenced by the -number of Representatives in the respective State Legislatures; that -this last circumstance is rendered peculiarly forcible by a comparative -view of the objects of legislation chartered to the Government of the -United States, and those retained to the State Governments. The objects -of legislation chartered to the Government of the United States, are -wholly national and important; the objects of legislation retained to -the State Governments are comparatively local and subaltern: those -peculiarly prompt temptation and invite corruption--these offer no -inducements to either. In the Government of the United States, the -constituents of the Representative body are complex and diversified; in -the State Governments they are comparatively simple and assimilated. -That a sympathy with the feelings of the people should characterize this -branch of the Government; wisdom is the expected characteristic of the -Senate; and despatch of the Executive. - -To the inequality of representation relatively to States suggested to -result from the application of this rule, Mr. G. replied that the -inequality complained of is rather ideal than real; that to determine -how far this consideration really ought to exist among States, it is -right and proper to ascertain the whole comparative Government: and the -issue of this inquiry will be, that those States in whose favor the rule -is said to operate, possess the least governmental influence in the -Senate, proportioned to numbers; and that the casual gain here is no -equivalent for the certain loss there. As far, therefore, as the -governmental influence of States in relation to numbers is to operate, -it will furnish a motive of preferment for the rule he contended for. - -It has been said (continued Mr. G.) that the representation of the -States in the Senate is strictly defined by the constitution, and that -therefore the consideration of the relative influence of the States, -then, should not be resorted to as an argument in the apportionment of -Representatives to this House. But, it should be observed, that the rule -contended for, though not so strictly defined, is equally within the -pale of the constitution; and the most extended use to be made of this -consideration is, to manifest the impropriety of resorting to the -pretended inequality among States, as a conclusive argument to vary that -ratio of representation for this House which is admitted to be the most -proper, upon its intrinsic merits, and when viewed without a reference -to that consideration. This particular subject suggests a peculiar -equity and propriety, in taking into consideration the comparative -governmental influence of the States in the Senate, proportioned to -numbers; because, it is in consequence of a representation by States, -there, that they gain this unequal influence: and nothing more is -contended for by this rule than a representation of the people through -the medium of the several States, here. The rule of representation is -not the cause of the present inequality, as far as it may appear to -exist; it is a mere contingent circumstance, depending upon arbitrary -facts and numbers, which cannot be rendered subservient to any general -rule. It should also be remarked, that most of the States supposed to be -favored by the operation of this rule, have, heretofore, been unequally -represented in the extreme; and from the extent and rapid population of -these States, it may be concluded, with certainty, that previously to -the expiration of the present apportionment, the real inequality of -representation in this House, as well as in the Senate, will continue to -bear particularly hard upon them. Perfect equality is unattainable; and -the proposed ratio is, in the principle, equally subject with any other -to all the inconveniences which it is intended to remedy. - -The inconveniences of the rule he contended for, in their utmost extent, -can never be very great, because the same rule is applied in the same -manner to the respective States; and the most extended scope for its -unequal operation must be confined to the casual result of the -fractional numbers within the several States. In reflecting upon this -argument of inequality of representation in relation to States, an idea -had presented itself to his mind which seemed to him both novel and -important; and that is, that a quality exists in the Government, from -its peculiar organization which enables a minority of constituents, -through the medium of a majority of Representatives, to give law to a -majority of constituents, absolutely against the will of their minority -of Representatives. This quality of the Government arises from the State -representations in the Senate; and it exists not merely in speculation -or idea--it has been sensibly felt in practice, and there is a real -tendency in the Government to make it still more so. The very bill now -under consideration will probably furnish one strong evidence of its -efficacy in practice; it would have passed very differently from the -present proposition, if it had not met with this unnatural check; and I -am concerned, said he, to remark, that almost in every important measure -of the Government, the minority of the people of the Union had given law -to the majority of the people, against their consent, as far as this can -be evidenced through the medium of their Representatives. This, it is to -be feared, is a radical evil in the Government, and its magnitude would -be in a great measure proportioned to the extension of the objects of -legislation by this Government. If the people be the only legal source -of governmental authority, and this right of individuals be equal, this -is certainly a heterodox principle in the Government. He would not -pretend to say, however, that this was a cancer upon the body politic -too inveterate and vital to admit of a cure; but he conceived it to be a -sore of that sort which it would be unwise to irritate or tamper with: -and he conceived, also, the present proposition not to be without its -irritating qualities. - -Mr. G. then proceeded to consider, upon general principles, of -increasing the representation in this House to the full extent -authorized by the constitution, and particularly with a view to the -necessity of establishing, in this branch of the Government, a permanent -sympathy with the landed interest. He observed, that all Representative -Governments appeared to possess a natural tendency from Republicanism to -Monarchy; that, great inequalities in the distribution of wealth among -individuals, consequent upon the progress of all governments, appeared -to be the cause of their political evolutions; that no competent remedy -against this evil had been heretofore discovered, or at least -practically applied by any Government; that perhaps this great political -light may first shine forth through the medium of the American -constitutions, and serve, as some others have previously done, to -illumine not only the American, but the European world. - -The peculiar circumstances of the United States, however, since the late -Revolution, and in the infancy of the American Governments, favored -extremely this natural principle of the growing inequality in the -distribution of wealth amongst individuals. An extensive, unexhausted, -fertile country furnished full scope for agriculture, the plenty and -cheapness of provisions and rude materials for manufactures, and an -unshackled commerce for the merchant; and to these were added the -blessings of peace, and laws securing to the individual the exclusive -possession of the fruits of his own industry, however abundant. There -were intrinsic circumstances; there was a contingent one. A public -debt--the price of the Revolution itself and its consequent -blessings--had been incurred, and, from the imbecility of the then -existing Confederacy, and other causes, was depreciated considerably -below its nominal value; but it was then in small masses, and not very -unequally spread amongst the individuals throughout the whole United -States. The Government of the United States, instead of managing this -contingent circumstance with caution, and declaring so in its -ministration, seized upon it with its fiscal arrangement, and applied it -as the most powerful machine to stimulate this growing inequality in the -distribution of wealth--a principle perhaps too much favored by other -existing causes. The Government, not satisfied with the debts contracted -by the former Confederacy, assumed the payment of a great proportion of -the debts contracted by the respective State Governments, and -established funds for paying the interest of the whole. This measure -produced two effects, not very desirable amongst individuals. It -gathered these scattered debts, at a very inferior price, from the hands -of the many, and placed them in the hands of the few; and it stimulates -the value of them. Thus collected into greater masses, beyond all -calculation, by the artificial application of fiscal mechanism, it -produced a variety of serious effects with respect to the Government. In -opposition to the agricultural or republican, it enlisted a great -moneyed interest in the United States, who, having embarked their -fortunes with the Government, would go all lengths with its -Administration, whether right or wrong, virtuous or vicious, by -rendering the debt but partially redeemable, passing perpetual tax laws, -and mortgaging their products to the payment of the interest of this -perpetually-existing debt. It gave the Executive a qualified control -over the best moneyed resources of the United States, not contemplated -by the constitution, nor founded in wisdom. It gave rise to an -unauthorized incorporation of the moneyed interest, and placed it as far -as possible from the reach of future Legislative influence. It -established the doctrine that one systematic financier was better able -to originate money bills and tax the people of the United States, than -the whole collected wisdom of their Representatives, with the aid of a -reciprocity of feeling. It gave rise to the idea of a Sinking Fund, -without limitation as to amount, to be placed in the hands of a few -trustees, and there to be protected from Legislative control by all the -sanctions and securities annexed to private property. In short, it -established the doctrine that all authority could be more safely -intrusted to, and better executed by a few, than by many; and, in -pursuance of this idea, made more continual drafts of authority from -the Representative branch of the Government, and placed it in the hands -of the Executive; lessening, by this mechanism of administration, the -constitutional influence of the people in the Government, and -fundamentally changing its native genius and original principle. He (Mr. -G.) knew of no competent remedy against the abominable evils to be -apprehended from the future operation of these unhallowed principles, -but a permanent establishment of the candid or Republican interest in -this House; and the best chance of effecting this great object he -conceived to be a full representation of the people. His alarms -respecting these fashionable, energetic principles were greatly -increased by a perspective view of some of the proposed measures of -Government. He saw systems introduced to carve out of the common rights -of one part of the community privileges, monopolies, exclusive rights, -&c., for the benefit of another, with no other view, in his opinion, but -to create nurseries of immediate dependants upon the Government, whose -interest will always stimulate them to support its measures, however -iniquitous and tyrannical, and, indeed, the very emoluments which will -compose the price of their attachment to the Government will grow out of -a tyrannical violation of the rights of others. He would forbear to -mention a variety of other circumstances, to prove that principles -having a tendency to change the very nature of the Government, have -pervaded even the minutest ramifications of its fiscal arrangements, nor -would he dwell upon the undue influence to be apprehended from moneyed -foreigners, who had become adventurers in the funds, nor the various -avenues opened to facilitate the operation of corruption. He would -merely remark, that, acting under impressions produced by these -considerations, and strengthened by others not less pertinent and -important, suggested by a number of gentlemen, in the course of the -discussion of this subject, and believing that a full representation of -the people will furnish the only chance of remedy for the existing, and -a competent protection against future evils, he should feel himself -criminal if by his vote he should give up a single Representative -authorized by the constitution. The same impressions would have induced -him to have voted for the proposition which gave one hundred and twenty -members, had it not been for a conscientious and paramount regard for -the preservation of the constitution. The difference of the position of -the members throughout the United States, which would have been assumed -by the difference in the manner of making the apportionment, never -amounted to the minimum of a consideration with him against the -proposition; for he felt a conviction that the agricultural or -equalizing interest was nearly the same throughout all parts of the -United States; and he hoped that the increased representation would -furnish strong testimonies of the truth of the position. He would -remark, generally, the Government of America was now in a state of -puberty, that is, at this time. She is to assume a fixed character, and -he thought it in some degree rested upon the vote now to be given, -whether she would preserve the simplicity, chastity, and purity of her -native representation and Republicanism, in which alone the true dignity -and greatness of her character must consist; or whether she will, so -early in youth, prostitute herself to the venal and borrowed artifices -and corruptions of a stale and pampered Monarchy? Whatever his own -opinions or suspicions may be respecting the tendency of the present -Administration, and whatever may be the discussion of to-day, he should -still preserve a hope that the increased representation, supported by -the enlightened spirit of the people at large, will form an effectual -resistance to the pressure of the whole vices of the Administration, and -may yet establish the Government upon a broad, permanent, and Republican -basis. - -When Mr. GILES had concluded, the committee rose, and reported an -amendment, viz: to fill up the blank with the word "thirty-three;" which -was carried in the affirmative--yeas 34, nays 30, as follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias - Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Abraham - Clark, Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, - Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Andrew - Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse, - Daniel Huger, Israel Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, John W. - Kittera, Amasa Learned, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Niles, - Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William - Smith, Jonathan Sturges, Peter Sylvester, George Thatcher, - John Vining, Jeremiah Wadsworth, and Artemas Ward. - - NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, John Brown, - William Findlay, William B. Giles, Samuel Griffin, William - Barry Grove, Philip Key, John Laurance, Richard Bland Lee, - Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew - Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, - John Page, Josiah Parker, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Joshua - Seney, Upton Sheridine, John Steele, Samuel Sterrett, - Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor Tucker, - Abraham Venable, Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and - Francis Willis. - -_Ordered_, That the said bill, together with the amendments, be -engrossed and read the third time to-morrow. - - -FRIDAY, April 20. - -_Publication of the Debates._ - -Before the House proceeded to the order of the day-- - -Mr. GERRY said, that the circumstance of a publication which had made -its appearance that morning induced him to rise for the purpose of -bringing forward a proposition respecting a full and impartial -publication of the debates of that House. Every gentleman, he believed, -would agree with him that, from a publication of this kind, the citizens -of the United States would derive such information respecting the -proceedings of the Legislature, and the principles on which the laws are -grounded, as must be productive of the most salutary effects, and attach -the people more strongly to the General Government; but the _ex parte_ -publications can have no other tendency than to misrepresent their -proceedings, and alienate the affections of the citizens. He therefore -moved the following resolution: - - "Whereas an impartial publication of the Debates of - Congress stating accurately their Legislative measures, and - the reasons urged for and against them, is a desirable - object, inasmuch as it may aid the Executive in - administering the Government, the Judiciary in expounding - the laws, the Governments and citizens of the several - States in forming a judgment of the conduct of their - respective Representatives, and Congress themselves in - revising and amending their Legislative proceedings: And - whereas, from the want of proper arrangements, such - publication has not been accomplished-- - - "_Resolved_, That ---- persons, of good reputation, and - skilled in the art of stenography, be, at the next session, - appointed by ballot, to take and publish, impartially and - accurately, the Legislative subjects which may be submitted - to the consideration of the House, and the debates thereon - of the members respectively; that the persons so to be - appointed be considered as officers of the House, and - provided for accordingly; that they be severally qualified - by oath to a faithful discharge of the trust; and that such - regulations shall be prescribed, as may be necessary to - protect them in attaining the salutary objects of their - appointment." - -This, Mr. G. said, was a subject which ought no longer to be overlooked. -Whilst Congress sat at New York, great uneasiness had been occasioned in -the House by the mode in which the debates were published. Sometimes -members were introduced as uttering arguments directly the reverse of -what they had advanced. At other times, the substance of the arguments, -as published, wore an aspect widely different from what they had when -offered in debate. In some instances, their arguments were so garbled -that they themselves were unable to recognize them in print; in others, -they were disfigured with grammatical errors, and rendered totally -unintelligible; and on many occasions, the arguments on one side of the -question only were published. - -Such were the effects produced by this mode of publication that a -gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. BURKE) brought forward a motion for -correcting those evils, which was debated for some time. After the -subject had been two or three times under discussion, the House was -informed that there was a probability of care being taken in future to -correct the errors; and thus the matter was passed over. - -Mr. G. then mentioned a circumstance which he had learned from a -gentleman who had declared he could prove it on oath before the House, -if called upon, viz: that, having asked one of those persons who at that -time published the debates, "how he could think of publishing them so -inaccurately?" the answer was, "that he was under a necessity of -obliging his employers." Hence, he concluded that there must have been a -corrupt faction who influenced that short-hand writer. - -When Congress first came to this city, the debates were published pretty -accurately; and so they were this session, in some of the papers, but, -in others, the case was otherwise; and he himself, as well as other -gentlemen, had been under a necessity of publicly contradicting them in -print. In some of the debates, the answer to an argument was published -before the argument itself made its appearance; on other occasions, they -were published very fully on one side of the question, whilst nothing -appeared on the other. Every gentleman, he believed, would admit that -this was a true state of the business; and it was well known that, on -many important occasions, no debates had been published at all. - -The want of regularity in the publication was, he supposed, owing, in -some measure, to the want of proper encouragement, as the printers of -newspapers would not probably find their account in allowing a -sufficient compensation to induce short-hand writers to devote their -whole time to the business. - -Mr. G. then read from the American Daily Advertiser (of Friday last) the -following passage: - - "A warm debate hereupon took place, during the course of - which one gentleman, who strenuously supported the motion, - was several times interrupted. Apprehensions were expressed - of dangerous consequences, in case his speech should appear - in print; and an honorable member, who opposed the motion, - (Mr. GERRY,) declared that the manner in which the Debates - of Congress had been published, and the business conducted, - during the present session, had a direct tendency to bring - about a dissolution of the Union. - - "As the honorable gentleman did not further explain - himself, we are at a loss to determine whether he meant to - tax the publishers of the debates with inaccuracy in - stating them wrong,----or imprudence, in stating them - right, and freely publishing whatever sentiments any member - of that House may think proper to express, in the - constitutional exercise of the freedom of debate. But, - certain we are, that he could not mean to stigmatize them - as actuated by partiality, undue influence, or sinister - motives of any kind." - -Here, said Mr. G., an idea was held up that the gentleman who had spoken -first (Mr. MERCER) was interrupted. But it is not said that I was -interrupted too. I was interrupted as often as he. The House can -determine whether I have ever taken any measure to prevent a free and -candid publication of the debates. On the contrary, I have always -endeavored to obtain it; and I will still proceed to accomplish it as -far as possible. I think neither this House nor any of its members ought -to be subject to publications of this kind. If they are, they will be -obliged either to enter into paper wars with printers, or to relinquish -the public good. It is incumbent on the House to take measures to -prevent misrepresentation. I therefore submit to the House the -resolution which I have read; and I hope that, if the proposition itself -appears worthy of their attention, they will take it into consideration; -or, if it wants any amendment, they will refer it to a committee; for I -think the subject ought not to be any longer neglected. - -Mr. MERCER.--I second the motion; and I think the publication which the -honorable gentleman has read to the House contains but a fair statement -of facts. The gentleman, in the course of the former debate, made some -very strange allusions to what was said by me, which were wholly -unauthorized. I consider it as a primary object in this Government that -we should on this floor be at all times free to express our sentiments -of the Government, without involving the Government itself. I consider -such a measure as is now contemplated to be well worthy the serious -attention of the House. We are at a distance from our constituents; and -it is a misfortune that we are withdrawn from their inspection, by being -placed in a part of the Union where it is not easy to compare our -circumstances and conduct in private life with the motives which may be -supposed to influence our political conduct. Our constituents ought to -be acquainted with our proceedings here; and it is only from a full and -accurate publication of the debates of this House that they can obtain -any satisfactory information on this subject. - -Mr. GERRY said, that the paragraph he had read did not contain a full -statement of facts, as the apprehensions he had expressed were only in -case the arguments should go "_unanswered_." - -Mr. GILES made, and Mr. W. SMITH seconded, a motion for referring the -resolution to a select committee, to report such regulation as they may -think necessary for the publication of the debates. An additional reason -for the reference was, that some alteration in the wording appeared -necessary, to (Mr. SMITH,) so far as respects the Judiciary, &c. - -Mr. BOUDINOT objected to the commitment, as he thought it a subject of -considerable consequence, and there would not be time to take it up -during the present session, the House having already outsat the time -which the other branch of the Legislature had proposed for the -adjournment. This was his only objection; otherwise, he was far from -being opposed to the measure. - -Mr. GILES thought the consequence of letting the matter lie over till -next session would be, that it would die away, and nothing would be -done. Unless some steps be taken during the present session, no persons -would come forward as candidates at the commencement of the next. But if -a committee report on the subject, the House may determine what steps -are to be taken, and the people will be prepared accordingly. - -The question being taken on the commitment, it passed in the -affirmative--yeas 27, nays, 22. - -_Ordered_, That the said motion be committed to Mr. GERRY, Mr. MERCER, -Mr. LEE, Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina,) and Mr. KITTERA. - - -TUESDAY, May 8. - -A message was received from the Senate, notifying the House that the -Senate, having completed the Legislative business before them, are now -about to adjourn. Whereupon, - -_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 November 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, - -The SPEAKER adjourned the House, to meet on the first Monday in November -next. - - - - -SECOND CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION. - -BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, NOVEMBER 5, 1792. - - -PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE. - -MONDAY, November 5, 1792. - -This being the day fixed by law for the annual meeting of the second -session of the second Congress, the following Senators appeared, and -took their seats: - -JOHN LANGDON and PAINE WINGATE, from New Hampshire. - -CALEB STRONG and GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts. - -THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island. - -OLIVER ELLSWORTH and ROGER SHERMAN, from Connecticut. - -STEPHEN R. BRADLEY and MOSES ROBINSON, from Vermont. - -RUFUS KING, from New York. - -PHILEMON DICKINSON and JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey. - -GEORGE READ, from Delaware. - -JAMES MONROE, from Virginia. - -JOHN BROWN and JOHN EDWARDS, from Kentucky. - -BENJAMIN HAWKINS, from North Carolina. - -PIERCE BUTLER and RALPH IZARD, from South Carolina; and - -WILLIAM FEW, from Georgia. - -In the absence of the VICE PRESIDENT, and also of RICHARD HENRY LEE, -elected President _pro tempore_ at a former session, the Senate -proceeded to the choice of a President _pro tempore_, as the -constitution provides, and JOHN LANGDON was duly elected. - -JOHN BROWN and JOHN EDWARDS, from the State of Kentucky, respectively, -produced their credentials; and the oath required by law was, by the -PRESIDENT _pro tempore_, administered to them. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that -a quorum of the Senate is assembled and ready to proceed on business. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a -quorum of the House of Representatives is assembled, and ready to -proceed to business. - -A second message informed the Senate that the House of Representatives -have resolved that a committee be appointed, jointly with such committee -as the Senate shall 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 communications he may please to make to them; in -which resolution they desire the concurrence of the Senate. - -_Resolved_, That the Senate concur in the appointment of a joint -committee to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to -the resolution of the House of Representatives, and that Messrs. IZARD -and STRONG be the committee on the part of the Senate. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the -House of Representatives have resolved that two Chaplains, of different -denominations, be appointed to Congress, for the present session, one by -each House, who shall interchange weekly; in which they desire the -concurrence of the Senate. - -The Senate proceeded to consider the said resolution; and - -_Resolved_, That they do concur therein, and that the Right Rev. Bishop -WHITE be the Chaplain on the part of the Senate. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the -House of Representatives have proceeded to the election of a Chaplain to -Congress for the present session, and have appointed the Rev. Doctor -GREEN on their part. - -Mr. IZARD, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT -OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to the resolution of the two Houses of -this day, reported, - -That they had executed the business, and that the PRESIDENT OF THE -UNITED STATES proposed to meet the two Houses of Congress in the Senate -Chamber to-morrow at 11 o'clock. - - -TUESDAY, November 6. - -ROBERT MORRIS, from the State of Pennsylvania, attended, and took his -seat. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that -the Senate are ready to meet them in the Senate Chamber, to receive any -communications the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES may be pleased to make -to the two Houses of Congress, and that the usual seats will be assigned -to them. - -The House of Representatives having accordingly taken their seats, the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the Senate Chamber, and -addressed both Houses of Congress, as follows: - - _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - It is some abatement of the satisfaction with which I meet - you on the present occasion, that, in felicitating you on a - continuance of the national prosperity, generally, I am not - able to add to it information that the Indian hostilities, - which have, for some time past, distressed our - north-western frontier, have terminated. - - You will, I am persuaded, learn with no less concern than I - communicate it, that reiterated endeavors, towards - effecting a pacification, have hitherto issued only in new - and outrageous proofs of persevering hostility on the part - of the tribes with whom we are in contest. An earnest - desire to procure tranquillity to the frontier; to stop the - further effusion of blood; to arrest the progress of - expense; to forward the prevalent wish of the nation for - peace, has led to strenuous efforts, through various - channels, to accomplish these desirable purposes; in making - which efforts, I consulted less my own anticipations of the - event, or the scruples which some considerations were - calculated to inspire, than the wish to find the object - attainable; or, if not attainable, to ascertain - unequivocally that such is the case. - - A detail of the measures which have been pursued, and of - their consequences, which will be laid before you, while it - will confirm to you the want of success, thus far, will, I - trust, evince that means as proper and as efficacious as - could have been devised have been employed. The issue of - some of them, indeed, is still depending; but a favorable - one, though not to be despaired of, is not promised by any - thing that has yet happened. - - In the course of the attempts which have been made, some - valuable citizens have fallen victims to their zeal for the - public service. A sanction commonly respected even among - savages has been found, in this instance, insufficient to - protect from massacre the emissaries of peace: it will, I - presume, be duly considered whether the occasion does not - call for an exercise of liberality towards the families of - the deceased. - - It must add to your concern to be informed, that, besides - the continuation of hostile appearances among the tribes - north of the Ohio, some threatening symptoms have of late - been revived among some of those south of it. - - A part of the Cherokees, known by the name of Chickamagas, - inhabiting five villages on the Tennessee River, have long - been in the practice of committing depredations on the - neighboring settlements. - - It was hoped that the treaty of Holston, made with the - Cherokee nation in July, 1791, would have prevented a - repetition of such depredations. But the event has not - answered this hope. The Chickamagas, aided by some banditti - of another tribe, in their vicinity, have recently - perpetrated wanton and unprovoked hostilities upon the - citizens of the United States in that quarter. The - information which has been received on this subject will be - laid before you. Hitherto, defensive precautions only have - been strictly enjoined and observed. - - It is not understood that any breach of treaty, or - aggression whatsoever, on the part of the United States, or - their citizens, is even alleged as a pretext for the spirit - of hostility in this quarter. - - I have reason to believe that every practicable exertion - has been made (pursuant to the provision by law for that - purpose) to be prepared for the alternative of a - prosecution of the war, in the event of a failure of - pacific overtures. A large proportion of the troops - authorized to be raised have been recruited, though the - number is still incomplete. And pains have been taken to - discipline and put them in condition for the particular - kind of service to be performed. A delay of operations - (besides being dictated by the measures which were pursuing - towards a pacific termination of the war) has been in - itself deemed preferable to immature efforts. A statement, - from the proper Department, with regard to the number of - troops raised, and some other points which have been - suggested, will afford more precise information, as a guide - to the Legislative consultations; and among other things, - will enable Congress to judge whether some additional - stimulus to the recruiting service may not be advisable. - - In looking forward to the future expense of the operations - which may be found inevitable, I derive consolation from - the information I receive, that the product of the revenues - for the present year is likely to supersede the necessity - of additional burdens on the community for the service of - the ensuing year. This, however, will be better ascertained - in the course of the session; and it is proper to add, that - the information alluded to proceeds upon the supposition of - no material extension of the spirit of hostility. - - I cannot dismiss the subject of Indian affairs without - again recommending to your consideration the expediency of - more adequate provision for giving energy to the laws - throughout our interior frontier, and for restraining the - commission of outrages upon the Indians; without which all - pacific plans must prove nugatory. To enable, by competent - rewards, the employment of qualified and trusty persons to - reside among them as agents, would also contribute to the - preservation of peace and good neighborhood. If, in - addition to these expedients, an eligible plan could be - devised for promoting civilization among the friendly - tribes, and for carrying on trade with them, upon a scale - equal to their wants, and under regulations calculated to - protect them from imposition and extortion, its influence - in cementing their interest with ours, could not but be - considerable. - - The prosperous state of our revenue has been intimated. - This would be still more the case were it not for the - impediments which, in some places, continue to embarrass - the collection of the duties on spirits distilled within - the United States. These impediments have lessened, and are - lessening, in local extent; and, as applied to the - community at large, the contentment with the law appears to - be progressive. - - But symptoms of increased opposition having lately - manifested themselves in certain quarters, I judged a - special interposition on my part proper and advisable; and, - under this impression, have issued a Proclamation, warning - against all unlawful combinations and proceedings, having - for their object or tending to obstruct the law in - question, and announcing that all lawful ways and means - would be strictly put in execution for bringing to justice - the infractors thereof, and securing obedience thereto. - - Measures have also been taken for the prosecution of - offenders; and Congress may be assured that nothing within - constitutional and legal limits, which may depend upon me, - shall be wanting to assert and maintain the just authority - of the laws. In fulfilling this trust, I shall count - entirely upon the full co-operation of the other - Departments of the Government, and upon the zealous support - of all good citizens. - - I cannot forbear to bring again into the view of the - Legislature the subject of a revision of the Judiciary - system. A representation from the Judges of the Supreme - Court, which will be laid before you, points out some of - the inconveniences that are experienced. In the course of - the execution of the laws, considerations arise out of the - structure of that system, which, in some cases, tend to - relax their efficacy. As connected with this subject, - provisions to facilitate the taking of bail upon processes - out of the Courts of the United States, and a supplementary - definition of offences against the constitution and laws of - the Union, and of the punishment for such offences, will, - it is presumed, be found worthy of particular attention. - - Observations on the value of peace with other nations are - unnecessary. It would be wise, however, by timely - provisions to guard against those acts of our own citizens, - which might tend to disturb it, and to put ourselves in a - condition to give that satisfaction to foreign nations - which we may sometimes have occasion to require from them. - I particularly recommend to your consideration the means of - preventing those aggressions by our citizens on the - territory of other nations, and other infractions of the - law of nations which, furnishing just subject of complaint, - might endanger our peace with them, and, in general, the - maintenance of a friendly intercourse with foreign Powers, - will be presented to your attention by the expiration of - the law for that purpose, which takes place, if not - renewed, at the close of the present session. - - In execution of the authority given by the Legislature, - measures have been taken for engaging some artists from - abroad to aid in the establishment of our Mint: others have - been employed at home. Provision has been made for the - requisite buildings, and these are now putting into proper - condition for the purposes of the establishment. There has - also been a small beginning in the coinage of half-dimes; - the want of small coins in circulation calling the first - attention to them. - - The regulation of foreign coins, in correspondency with the - principles of our national coinage, as being essential to - their due operation, and in order to our money concerns, - will, I doubt not, be resumed and completed. - - It is represented that some provisions in the law which - establishes the Post Office, operate, in experiment, - against the transmission of newspapers to distant parts of - the country. Should this, upon due inquiry, be found to be - the fact, a full conviction of the importance of - facilitating the circulation of political intelligence and - information will, I doubt not, lead to the application of a - remedy. - - The adoption of a constitution for the State of Kentucky - has been notified to me. The Legislature will share with me - in the satisfaction which arises from an event interesting - to the happiness of the part of the nation to which it - relates, and conducive to the general order. - - It is proper likewise to inform you, that, since my last - communication on the subject, and in further execution of - the acts severally making provision for the Public Debt, - and for the reduction thereof, three new loans have been - effected, each for three millions of florins; one at - Antwerp, at the annual interest of four and one-half per - cent., with an allowance of four per cent., in lieu of all - charges; and the other two at Amsterdam, at the annual - interest of four per cent., with an allowance of five and - one-half per cent. in one case, and of five per cent. in - the other, in lieu of all charges. The rates of these - loans, and the circumstances under which they have been - made, are confirmations of the high state of our credit - abroad. - - Among the objects to which these funds have been directed - to be applied, the payment of the debts due to certain - foreign officers, according to the provision made during - the last session, has been embraced. - - _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_ - - I entertain a strong hope that the state of our national - finances is now sufficiently matured to enable you to enter - upon a systematic and effectual arrangement for the regular - redemption and discharge of the Public Debt, according to - the right which has been reserved to the Government; no - measure can be more desirable, whether viewed with an eye - to its intrinsic importance, or to the general sentiment - and wish of the nation. - - Provision is likewise requisite for the reimbursement of - the loan which has been made of the Bank of the United - States, pursuant to the eleventh section of the act by - which it is incorporated; in fulfilling the public - stipulations in this particular, it is expected a valuable - saving will be made. - - Appropriations for the current service of the ensuing year, - and for such extraordinaries as may require provision, will - demand, and I doubt not will engage, your early attention. - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - I content myself with recalling your attention, generally, - to such objects, not particularized in my present, as have - been suggested in my former communications to you. - - Various temporary laws will expire during the present - session. Among these, that which regulates trade and - intercourse with the Indian tribes will merit particular - attention. - - The results of your common deliberations hitherto, will, I - trust, be productive of solid and durable advantages to our - constituents; such as, by conciliating more and more their - ultimate suffrage, will tend to strengthen and confirm - their attachment to that constitution of Government upon - which, under Divine Providence, materially depend their - Union, their safety, and their happiness. - - Still further to promote and secure these inestimable ends, - there is nothing which can have a more powerful tendency, - than the careful cultivation of harmony, combined with a - due regard to stability in the public councils. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _November 6, 1792._ - -The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES having retired, and the two Houses -being separated, - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. STRONG, KING, and RUTHERFORD, be a committee to -prepare and report the draft of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE -UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech this day, to both Houses of -Congress convened in the Senate Chamber. - -_Ordered_, That the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, -delivered this day, be printed for the use of the Senate. - - -THURSDAY, November 8. - -JOHN HENRY, from the State of Maryland, attended, and took his seat. - -Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate took into consideration -the Address reported by the committee to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; which, being -recommitted and amendments reported, was agreed to, as amended. - -_Ordered_, That the same committee wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES, and desire him to acquaint the Senate at what time and place it -will be most convenient for him that it should be presented. - -Mr. STRONG, from the above-mentioned committee, reported that the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES proposed to receive the Address of the -Senate at 11 o'clock to-morrow. - - -FRIDAY, November 9. - -The Senate waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES at his own -house, and the PRESIDENT _pro tempore_, in their name, communicated to -him the Address agreed to on the 8th instant, which is as follows: - - _To the President of the United States:_ - - Accept, sir, our grateful acknowledgments for your Address - at the opening of the present session. We participate with - you in the satisfaction arising from the continuance of the - general prosperity of the nation, but it is not without the - most sincere concern that we are informed that the - reiterated efforts which have been made to establish peace - with the hostile Indians, have hitherto failed to - accomplish that desired object. Hoping that the measures - still depending may prove more successful than those which - have preceded them, we shall nevertheless concur in every - necessary preparation for the alternative; and, should the - Indians on either side of the Ohio persist in their - hostilities, fidelity to the Union, as well as affection to - our fellow-citizens on the frontiers, will ensure our - decided co-operation in every measure which shall be deemed - requisite for their protection and safety. - - At the same time that we avow the obligation of the - Government to afford its protection to every part of the - Union, we cannot refrain from expressing our regret that - even a small portion of our fellow-citizens in any quarter - of it should have combined to oppose the operation of the - law for the collection of duties on spirits distilled - within the United States: a law repeatedly sanctioned by - the authority of the nation, and, at this juncture, - materially connected with the safety and protection of - those who oppose it. Should the means already adopted fail - in securing obedience to this law, such further measures as - may be thought necessary to carry the same into complete - operation cannot fail to receive the approbation of the - Legislature, and the support of every patriotic citizen. - - It yields us particular pleasure to learn, that the - productiveness of the revenue of the present year will - probably supersede the necessity of any additional tax for - the service of the next. - - The organization of the government of the State of Kentucky - being an event peculiarly interesting to a part of our - fellow-citizens, and conducive to the general order, - affords us particular satisfaction. - - We are happy to learn that the high state of our credit - abroad has been evinced by the terms on which the new loans - have been negotiated. - - In the course of the session we shall proceed to take into - consideration the several objects which you have been - pleased to recommend to our attention; and, keeping in view - the importance of union and stability in the public - councils, we shall labor to render our decisions conducive - to the safety and happiness of our country. - - We repeat with pleasure our assurances of confidence in - your Administration, and our ardent wish that your unabated - zeal for the public good may be rewarded by the durable - prosperity of the nation, and every ingredient of personal - happiness. - - JOHN LANGDON, - - _President pro tempore._ - -To this Address, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was pleased to make -the following reply: - - I derive much pleasure, gentlemen, from your very - satisfactory Address. The renewed assurances of your - confidence in my Administration, and the expression of your - wish for my personal happiness, claim and receive my - particular acknowledgments. In my future endeavor for the - public welfare, to which my duty may call me, I shall not - cease to count upon the firm, enlightened, and patriotic - support of the Senate. - - G. WASHINGTON. - -The Senate returned to their Chamber. - - -MONDAY, November 12. - -SAMUEL JOHNSTON, from the State of North Carolina, and JOSEPH STANTON, -from the State of Rhode Island, attended. - - -WEDNESDAY, November 14. - -The petition of William Dunbar, executor of the last will and testament -of George Galphin, deceased, late a Commissioner of Indian affairs, was -presented and read, praying in behalf of the children of the said George -Galphin, that the compensation allowed to the other Commissioners of -Indian affairs may be extended to them, the legal representatives of -their late father. - -On motion that this petition be referred to a committee, it passed in -the negative. - - -FRIDAY, November 23. - -RICHARD BASSETT, from the State of Delaware, attended and took his -seat. - - -THURSDAY, January 3, 1793. - -A motion was made and seconded that the Senate adopt the following -resolutions, to wit: - - "_Resolved_, That the Senate of the United States are - individually responsible for their conduct to their - constituents, who are entitled to such information as will - enable them to form a just estimate thereof. - - "_Resolved_, That the journals are too voluminous and - expensive to circulate generally; and, if it were - otherwise, that the information they contain, as to the - principles, motives, and designs of individual members, is - inadequate. - - "_Resolved_, That this information, defective as it is, - becomes more nugatory and delusive, in proportion as the - occasion for it increases, since the Senate make their own - Journals. - - "_Resolved_, That the conducting of the Legislative and - Judicial powers of the Senate in public, and suffering an - account of their measures and deliberations to be published - in the newspapers, is the best means of diffusing general - information concerning the principles, motives, and conduct - of individual members; and that, by withholding this - information, responsibility becomes unavailing, the - influence of their constituents over one branch of the - Legislature, in a great measure, annihilated, and the best - security which experience has devised against the abuse of - power and a maladministration abandoned. - - "_Resolved_, _therefore_, That it be a standing rule that - the doors of the Senate Chamber remain open whilst the - Senate shall be sitting in a Legislative and Judicative - capacity, except on such occasions as, in their judgment, - may require secrecy; and that this rule shall commence and - be in force on the first day of the next session of - Congress. - - "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Senate request the - Commissioners of the city and county of Philadelphia to - cause a proper gallery to be erected for the accommodation - of an audience." - -On motion that the resolves now proposed be printed for the use of the -Senate, it passed in the negative. - -_Ordered_, That they lie on the table, and that the consideration -thereof be the order of the day for the first Monday in February next. - - -FRIDAY, January 4. - -The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill respecting fugitives -from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters, -and the report of the committee thereon; and, after debate, the -consideration thereof was further postponed. - - -FRIDAY, January 18. - -The bill respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the -service of their masters, was read the third time, and being further -amended, on a motion to strike out "five hundred dollars," for the -purpose of inserting a less sum in section 4th, the penalty on "any -person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such -claimant, his agent or attorney, in so seizing or arresting such -fugitive from labor, or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, -his agent, or attorney, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority -herein given or declared, or shall harbor or conceal such person, after -notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor as aforesaid;" it passed -in the negative. - -_Resolved_, that this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and that the -title thereof be, "An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons -escaping from the service of their masters." - - -MONDAY, February 4. - -RICHARD POTTS, from the State of Maryland, appointed in place of CHARLES -CARROLL, resigned, produced his credentials, and took his seat. - -Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate proceeded to consider the -motion made the 3d of January, 1793, "That the doors of the Senate -Chamber remain open whilst the Senate shall be sitting in their -Legislative and Judicative capacity." - -On motion for the previous question, to wit: Shall the question be now -put on the following preliminary resolutions? - - "_Resolved_, That the Senate of the States are, - individually, responsible for their conduct to their - constituents, who are entitled to such information as will - enable them to form a just estimate thereof: - - "_Resolved_, That the journals are too voluminous and - expensive to circulate generally; and, if it were - otherwise, that the information they contain, as to the - principles, motives, and designs, of individual members, is - inadequate: - - "_Resolved_, That this information, defective as it is, - becomes more nugatory and delusive, in proportion as the - occasion for it increases, since the Senate make their own - journals: - - "_Resolved_, That the conducting of the Legislative and - Judicial powers of the Senate in public, and suffering an - account of their measures and deliberations to be published - in the newspapers, is the best means of diffusing general - information concerning the principles, motives, and - conduct, of individual members: and that, by withholding - this information, responsibility becomes unavailing, the - influence of their constituents over one branch of the - Legislature in a great measure annihilated, and the best - security which experience has devised against the abuse of - power and a maladministration abandoned:" - -It passed in the negative--yeas 7, nays 21, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Burr, Butler, Edwards, Gunn, Monroe, Potts, - and Taylor. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bassett, Bradley, Brown, Cabot, Dickinson, - Ellsworth, Foster, Hawkins, Henry, Johnston, Izard, King, - Langdon, Morris, Read, Robinson, Rutherford, Stanton, - Sherman, Strong, and Wingate. - -And on motion to agree to the main question, to wit: - - "that the doors of the Senate Chamber remain open whilst - the Senate shall be sitting in a Legislative and Judicative - capacity, except on such occasions as, in their judgment, - may require secrecy; and that this rule shall commence and - be in force on the first day of the next session of - Congress." - -It passed in the negative--yeas 10, nays 18, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, Gunn, Hawkins, - King, Monroe, Potts, and Taylor. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bassett, Bradley, Cabot, Dickinson, - Ellsworth, Foster, Henry, Johnston, Izard, Langdon, Morris, - Read, Robinson, Rutherford, Sherman, Stanton, Strong, and - Wingate. - -On the question to agree to the last resolution moved for on this -subject, it passed in the negative. - - -TUESDAY, February 5. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that -the House of Representatives have resolved, that a committee be -appointed to join such committee as may be appointed by the Senate to -ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for PRESIDENT and -VICE PRESIDENT, and of notifying the persons who shall be elected of -their election; and for regulating the time, place, and manner, of -administering the oath of office to the PRESIDENT; and have appointed a -committee on their part. - -This resolution of the House was read. - -_Ordered_, That the consideration thereof be postponed until to-morrow. - -The Senate proceeded to consider the amendment of the House of -Representatives to the bill sent from the Senate for concurrence, -entitled, "An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons -escaping from the service of their masters," and agreed to the -amendment, to wit: To strike out the word "deemed," in section first. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives -therewith. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 6. - -The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution of the House of -Representatives, that a committee be appointed, to join such committee -as may be appointed by the Senate, to ascertain and report a mode of -examining the votes for PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT, and of notifying -the persons who shall be elected of their election, and for regulating -the time, place and manner of administering the oath of office to the -PRESIDENT. - -_Resolved_, That the Senate concur in this resolution, and that Messrs. -KING, IZARD, and STRONG be the committee on the part of the Senate. - - -MONDAY, February 11. - -Mr. KING, from the joint committee, appointed the 6th February, instant, -reported that the two Houses should assemble in the Senate Chamber on -Wednesday next, at twelve o'clock; that one person be appointed a -teller, on the part of the Senate, to make a list of the votes as they -shall be declared; that the result shall be delivered to the PRESIDENT -of the Senate, who shall announce the state of the vote, and the persons -elected, to the two Houses assembled as aforesaid; which shall be deemed -a declaration of the persons elected PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT, and, -together with a list of the votes, be entered on the journals of the two -Houses, and the report was agreed to. - - -TUESDAY, February 12. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that -the House of Representatives agree to the report of the joint committee -appointed the 6th of February, instant, respecting the manner of -counting the votes for PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES. - -_Ordered_, That Mr. KING be appointed, on the part of the Senate, a -teller of the votes for PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES, conformably to the report of the joint committee, agreed to the -11th instant. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 13. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives that -the Senate are ready to meet them in the Senate Chamber, to attend the -opening and counting the vote for PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE -UNITED STATES, as the constitution provides. - -The two Houses having accordingly assembled, the certificates of the -Electors of the fifteen States in the Union, which came by express, -were, by the VICE PRESIDENT, opened, read, and delivered to the tellers -appointed for the purpose, who, having examined and ascertained the -votes, presented a list of them to the VICE PRESIDENT; which list was -read to the two Houses, and is as follows: - -FOR GEORGE WASHINGTON. - -New Hampshire, 6 -Massachusetts, 16 -Rhode Island, 4 -Connecticut, 9 -Vermont, 3 -New York, 12 -New Jersey, 7 -Pennsylvania, 15 -Delaware, 3 -Maryland, 8 -Virginia, 21 -Kentucky, 4 -North Carolina, 12 -South Carolina, 8 -Georgia, 4 - --- - 132 - -FOR JOHN ADAMS. - -New Hampshire, 6 -Massachusetts, 16 -Rhode Island, 4 -Connecticut, 9 -Vermont, 3 -New Jersey, 7 -Pennsylvania, 14 -Delaware, 3 -Maryland, 8 -South Carolina, 7 - -- - 77 -FOR GEORGE CLINTON. - -New York, 12 -Pennsylvania, 1 -Virginia, 21 -North Carolina, 12 -Georgia, 4 - -- - 50 - -FOR THOMAS JEFFERSON. - -Kentucky, 4 - -FOR AARON BURR. - -South Carolina, 1 - -Whereupon the VICE PRESIDENT declared GEORGE WASHINGTON unanimously -elected PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, for the period of four years, to -commence with the fourth day of March next; and JOHN ADAMS elected by a -plurality of votes, VICE PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, for the same -period, to commence with the 4th day of March next. - -After which, the VICE PRESIDENT delivered the duplicate certificates of -the Electors of the several States, received by post, together with -those which came by express to the Secretary of the Senate. - -The two Houses then separated, and the Senate adjourned. - - -THURSDAY, February 14. - -Mr. KING, from the committee appointed the 6th instant, to join the -committee on the part of the House of Representatives, to report a mode -of notifying the person who should be elected PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES of his election, submitted the following resolve: - -_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to join such committee as -shall be appointed by the House of Representatives, to wait on the -PRESIDENT and notify him of his unanimous re-election to the office of -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. - -And the report was adopted. _Ordered_, That Messrs. KING, IZARD, and -STRONG, be the committee on the part of the Senate. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the -House of Representatives have adopted the report of the joint committee, -appointed the 6th instant, to ascertain and report a mode of examining -the votes for _President_ and VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and -for other purposes; and have appointed a joint committee on their part -to wait on the PRESIDENT, and notify him of his unanimous re-election to -the office of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. - - -FRIDAY, February 15. - -Mr. KING, from the joint committee appointed for that purpose, reported: - -"That pursuant to the resolutions of the 14th instant, the joint -committee of the Senate and House of Representatives have this day -waited on the PRESIDENT, and notified him of his unanimous re-election -to the office of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES." - - -MONDAY, February 18. - -On motion to adopt the following resolution, to wit: - - _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury be - instructed to revise the account of the pension granted by - Congress for the education and board of Hugh Mercer, son of - the late General Mercer, from its date to the present - period, and correct any error that may have taken place - therein, paying all arrearages, if any now due; and that he - likewise pay hereafter without account, annually, and until - his education shall be completed, for that purpose, to the - guardian of the said Hugh, the sum of four hundred dollars. - -It was agreed to postpone the consideration of this motion until -to-morrow. - - -THURSDAY, February 28. - -The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a certificate, purporting that -the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have this day chosen -ALBERT GALLATIN a Senator of the United States. - - -FRIDAY, March 1. - -The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a Letter from the Secretary of the -Department of State, enclosing a triplicate certificate of the votes of -the Electors of the State of Kentucky for PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT -OF THE UNITED STATES, obtained by express, sent from the seat of -Government, as the law provides. - - -SATURDAY, March 2. - -Mr. KING, from the committee appointed this day on the communication of -the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, relative to his taking the oath of -office, reported that the Secretary inform the House of Representatives -that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES will, on Monday next, take the -oath of office required by the constitution, in the Senate Chamber, at -twelve o'clock; and that he inform the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES -that the Senate will be in session at that time. And the report was -adopted. - - -SPECIAL SESSION. - -MONDAY, March 4. - -In conformity to the summons from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, -the Senate assembled in the Senate Chamber. - -The Hon. JOHN LANGDON, President _pro tempore_, read the summons of the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, as follows: - - _The President of the United States to the President of the - Senate:_ - - Certain matters, touching the public good, requiring that - the Senate shall be convened on Monday the 4th instant, I - have desired their attendance, as I do yours, by these - presents, at the Senate Chamber, in Philadelphia, on that - day; then and there to receive and deliberate on such - communications as shall be made to you on my part. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - _March 1, 1793._ - -The following Senators were present: - -JOHN LANGDON, from New Hampshire. -GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts. -THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island. -OLIVER ELLSWORTH and ROGER SHERMAN, from Connecticut. -RUFUS KING, from New York. -JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey. -ROBERT MORRIS, from Pennsylvania. -GEORGE READ, from Delaware. -JOHN HENRY and RICHARD POTTS, from Maryland. -JAMES MONROE, from Virginia. -JOHN BROWN and JOHN EDWARDS, from Kentucky. -BENJAMIN HAWKINS, from North Carolina. -RALPH IZARD, from South Carolina. -JAMES GUNN, from Georgia. - -SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from the State of New Hampshire, produced his -credentials, and took his seat in the Senate; and the oath was -administered to him by the PRESIDENT of the Senate, as the law provides. - -Agreeably to notice given by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, on the -2d instant, he came to the Senate Chamber and took his seat in the chair -usually assigned the PRESIDENT of the Senate, who, on this occasion, was -seated at the right, and in advance of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES; a seat on the left, and also in advance, being provided for -Judge Cushing, appointed to administer the oath: the doors of the -Senate Chamber being open, the Heads of the Departments, Foreign -Ministers, the late Speaker, and such members of the late House of -Representatives as were in town, together with as many other spectators -as could be accommodated, were present. - -After a short pause, the PRESIDENT of the Senate arose, and addressed -the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, as follows: - - "SIR: One of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United - States is now present, and ready to administer to you the - oath required by the constitution to be taken by the - PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES." - -On which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, rising from his seat, was -pleased to address the audience as follows: - - "FELLOW-CITIZENS: I am again called upon, by the voice of - my country, to execute the functions of its Chief - Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I - shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of - this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has - been reposed in me by the people of United America. - - "Previous to the execution of any official act of the - PRESIDENT, the constitution requires an oath of office. - This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence; - that, if it shall be found, during my administration of the - Government, I have, in any instance, violated, willingly or - knowingly, the injunction thereof, I may (besides incurring - constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of - all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony." - -Judge CUSHING then administered the oath of office required by the -constitution; after which, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES retired, -and the spectators dispersed. - -After acting upon several nominations received from the PRESIDENT, the -Senate adjourned _sine die_. - - - - -SECOND CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION. - -PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. - - -MONDAY, November 5, 1792. - -This being the day appointed by law for the meeting of the present -Congress, the following members appeared, produced their credentials, -and took their seats: - -_From New Hampshire_, NICHOLAS GILMAN, SAMUEL LIVERMORE, and JEREMIAH -SMITH. - -_From Massachusetts_, FISHER AMES, SHEARJASHUR BOURNE, ELBRIDGE GERRY, -BENJAMIN GOODHUE, GEORGE THATCHER, and ARTEMAS WARD. - -_From Rhode Island_, GEORGE LEONARD, BENJAMIN BOURNE. - -_From Connecticut_, AMASA LEARNED, JONATHAN STURGES, and JONATHAN -TRUMBULL, (Speaker.) - -_From Vermont_, NATHANIEL NILES and ISRAEL SMITH. - -_From New York_, EGBERT BENSON, JOHN LAURANCE, and THOMAS TREDWELL. - -_From New Jersey_, ELIAS BOUDINOT, ABRAHAM CLARK, and JONATHAN DAYTON. - -_From Pennsylvania_, THOMAS FITZSIMONS and FREDERICK AUGUSTUS -MUHLENBERG. - -_From Maryland_, PHILIP KEY and WILLIAM VANS MURRAY. - -_From Virginia_, WILLIAM B. GILES, JAMES MADISON, ANDREW MOORE, JOSIAH -PARKER, ABRAHAM VENABLE, and ALEXANDER WHITE. - -_From North Carolina_, NATHANIEL MACON, JOHN STEELE, and HUGH -WILLIAMSON. - -_From South Carolina_, WILLIAM SMITH, THOMAS SUMTER, and THOMAS TUDOR -TUCKER. - -_From Georgia_, ABRAHAM BALDWIN and FRANCIS WILLIS. - -A quorum of members being present, a message was sent to the Senate to -inform that body thereof. And a similar message was received by the -House from the Senate; and that JOHN LANGDON had been chosen their -President _pro tempore_. - -A joint committee were then appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE -UNITED STATES, to inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is -assembled, and ready to receive any communications he may think proper -to make them. - -_Resolved_, That two Chaplains, of different denominations, be appointed -to Congress, one by each House, to interchange weekly. - -The House then proceeded to appoint a Chaplain on their part, when a -majority of votes appeared in favor of the Reverend ASHBEL GREEN. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Governor of Georgia, -enclosing a proclamation and return of the election of JOHN MILLEDGE, to -serve as one of the members of this House for the said State, in the -room of ANTHONY WAYNE, whose seat was declared vacant; which was read -and ordered to lie on the table. - -Mr. BOUDINOT, from the joint committee appointed 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 communications he may be -pleased to make to them, reported that the committee had performed that -service, and that the PRESIDENT was pleased to say, that he would make a -communication to both Houses of Congress to-morrow, at twelve o'clock in -the Senate Chamber. - - -TUESDAY, November 6. - -Several other members, viz: from New York, JAMES GORDON; from -Pennsylvania, JOHN WILKES KITTERA; and from Virginia, SAMUEL GRIFFIN and -JOHN PAGE, appeared, and took their seats in the House. - -A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate are now -ready, in the Senate Chamber, to attend this House in receiving the -communication from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to his -notification to both Houses yesterday. - -The SPEAKER, attended by the members of this House, then withdrew to the -Senate Chamber for the purpose expressed in the message from the Senate; -and, being returned, the SPEAKER laid before the House a copy of the -Speech delivered by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of -Congress, in the Senate Chamber. [A copy of the Speech appears in the -proceedings of the Senate.] - -_Ordered_, That the said Speech be committed to the consideration of a -Committee of the whole House to-morrow. - - -WEDNESDAY, November 7. - -_Defeat of General St. Clair._ - -_Ordered_, That the report of the committee appointed to inquire into -the causes of the failure of the late expedition under Major General St. -Clair, which was made on the 8th day of May last, be referred to the -consideration of a Committee of the whole House on Wednesday next. - -_Answer to the President._ - -The order of the day being called for, (Mr. LAURANCE in the chair,) the -Speech of the PRESIDENT, delivered yesterday to Congress, was taken up; -and, on motion of Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, the following resolve -was agreed to: "That a committee be appointed to prepare and report a -respectful Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to -his Speech delivered to both Houses of Congress at the opening of the -present session; with assurances, that they would take into -consideration the important matters therein contained." An amendment was -now moved, to strike out the word "important;" but it was negatived, as -being a word of too much importance to be neglected. The resolution was -carried, in substance, as above, and the committee rose and reported it. -The House immediately agreed, and a committee of three--Messrs. MADISON, -BENSON, and MURRAY--were appointed by the SPEAKER to prepare the answer -in conformity with the said resolve. - -The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - I lay before you copies of certain papers relative to the - Spanish interference in the execution of the treaty entered - into in the year 1790, between the United States, and the - Creek nation of Indians, together with a letter from the - Secretary of State to the President of the United States, - on the same subject. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, November 7, 1792. - -The papers accompanying the said message were read and ordered to lie on -the table. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House two letters from Thomas Barclay, -Consul of the United States at the Court of Morocco, one dated the 28th -of May, the other the 17th of July, 1792, enclosing petitions from -Richard O'Brien, in behalf of himself and other citizens of the United -States, now in captivity at Algiers, stating the peculiar hardships they -have undergone during the time they have been kept in slavery, and -praying that Congress will consider their distressed situation, and take -such measures for their releasement as to their wisdom shall seem meet. - -_Ordered_, That the said letters and petitions be referred to the -Secretary of State, for information. - - -THURSDAY, November 8. - -Several other members, to wit: from Connecticut, JAMES HILLHOUSE; from -Pennsylvania, WILLIAM FINDLAY and ISRAEL JACOBS; and from Kentucky, -ALEXANDER D. ORR, appeared, and took their seats in the House. - - -SATURDAY, November 10. - -Two other members, to wit: PETER SYLVESTER, from New York, and THOMAS -HARTLEY, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took their seats in the House. - -_Address to the President._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech -to both Houses of Congress; and, after some time spent therein, the -SPEAKER resumed the chair, and Mr. LAURANCE reported that the committee -had had the said Address under consideration, and made several -amendments thereto; which were severally twice read, and agreed to by -the House. - -And then the said Address, as amended, being again read, was, on the -question put thereon, agreed to by the House, as follows: - - "SIR: The House of Representatives, who always feel a - satisfaction in meeting you, are much concerned that the - occasion for mutual felicitation afforded by the - circumstances favorable to the national prosperity should - be abated by a continuance of the hostile spirit of many of - the Indian tribes, and, particularly, that the reiterated - efforts for effecting a general pacification with them - should have issued in new proofs of their persevering - enmity, and the barbarous sacrifice of citizens, who, as - the messengers of peace, were distinguishing themselves by - their zeal for the public service. In our deliberations on - this important department of our affairs, we shall be - disposed to pursue every measure that may be dictated by - the sincerest desire, on one hand, of cultivating peace, - and manifesting, by every practicable regulation, our - benevolent regard for the welfare of those misguided - people; and by the duty we feel, on the other, to provide - effectually for the safety and protection of our - fellow-citizens. - - "While with regret we learn that symptoms of opposition to - the law imposing duties on spirits distilled within the - United States, have manifested themselves, we reflect with - consolation, that they are confined to a small portion of - our fellow-citizens. It is not more essential to the - preservation of true liberty, that a Government should be - always ready to listen to the representations of its - constituents, and to accommodate its measures to the - sentiments and wishes of every part of them, as far as will - consist with the good of the whole, than it is, that the - just authority of the laws should be steadfastly - maintained. Under this impression, every department of the - Government, and all good citizens must approve the measures - you have taken, and the purpose you have formed, to - execute this part of your trust with firmness and energy; - and be assured, sir, of every constitutional aid and - co-operation, which may become requisite on our part. And - we hope that, while the progress of contentment under the - law in question, is as obvious as it is rational, no - particular part of the community may be permitted to - withdraw from the general burdens of the country, by a - conduct as irreconcilable to national justice, as it is - inconsistent with public decency. - - "The productive state of the public revenue, and the - confirmation of the credit of the United States abroad, - evinced by the loans at Antwerp and Amsterdam, are - communications the more gratifying, as they enforce the - obligation to enter on systematic and effectual - arrangements for discharging the public debt, as fast as - the conditions of it will permit; and we take pleasure in - the opportunity to assure you of our entire concurrence in - the opinion, that no measure can be more desirable, whether - viewed with an eye to the urgent wish of the community, or - the intrinsic importance of promoting so happy a change in - our situation. - - "The adoption of a constitution for the State of Kentucky, - is an event on which we join in all the satisfaction you - have expressed. It may be considered as particularly - interesting, since, besides the immediate benefits - resulting from it, it is another auspicious demonstration - of the facility and success with which an enlightened - people is capable of providing, by free and deliberate - plans of government, for their own safety and happiness. - - "The operation of the law establishing the Post Office, as - it relates to the transmission of newspapers, will merit - our particular inquiry and attention, the circulation of - political intelligence through these vehicles being justly - reckoned among the surest means of preventing the - degeneracy of a free government, as well as of recommending - every salutary public measure to the confidence and - co-operation of all virtuous citizens. - - "The several other matters which you have communicated and - recommended, will, in their order, receive the attention - due to them, and our discussions will, in all cases, we - trust, be guided by a proper respect for harmony and - stability in the public Councils, and a desire to - conciliate, more and more, the attachment of our - constituents to the constitution, by measures accommodated - to the true ends for which it was established." - -_Resolved_, That the SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said -Address, and that Mr. MADISON, Mr. BENSON, and Mr. MURRAY, be a -committee to wait on the PRESIDENT, to know when and where it will be -convenient for him to receive the same. - -Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF -THE UNITED STATES, to know when and where it will be convenient for him -to receive the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both -Houses of Congress, reported that the committee had waited on the -PRESIDENT, who signified to them that it would be convenient to him to -receive the said Address at 12 o'clock on Monday next, at his own house. - - -MONDAY, November 12. - -Another member, to wit, JOHN BAPTIST ASHE, from North Carolina, -appeared, and took his seat in the House. - -_Address to the President._ - -The SPEAKER, attended by the House, then withdrew to the house of the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and there presented to him the Address -of this House, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; to -which the PRESIDENT made the following reply: - - "GENTLEMEN: It gives me pleasure to express to you the - satisfaction which your Address affords me. I feel, as I - ought, the approbation you manifest of the measures I have - taken, and the purpose I have formed, to maintain, pursuant - to the trust reposed in me by the constitution, the respect - which is due to the laws; and the assurance which you, at - the same time, give me, of every constitutional aid and - co-operation that may become requisite on your part. - - "This is a new proof of that enlightened solicitude for the - establishment and confirmation of public order, which, - embracing a zealous regard for the principles of true - liberty, has guided the deliberations of the House of - Representatives; a perseverance in which can alone secure, - under the Divine blessing, the real and permanent felicity - of our common country. - - "G. WASHINGTON." - -The House having returned to their Chamber, resumed the reading of the -papers communicated by the Secretary of War, on Wednesday last, relative -to the Indians north-west and south of the river Ohio, and to the troops -in the service of the United States, and made a farther progress -therein. - - -TUESDAY, November 13. - -Two other members, to wit: ROBERT BARNWELL and DANIEL HUGER, from South -Carolina, appeared, and took their seats in the House. - -_Defeat of General St. Clair._ - -On a motion made and seconded, that the House do come to the following -resolution: - - "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury and the - Secretary of War be notified that this House intend, on - Wednesday next, to take into consideration the Report of - the committee appointed to inquire into the causes of the - failure of the late expedition under General St. Clair, to - the end that they may attend the House, and furnish such - information as may be conducive to the due investigation of - the matters stated in the said report:" - -Mr. WILLIAMSON moved to strike out the latter part of the resolution, -which respected the attendance of the Secretaries on the House. This -motion, if carried, leaves the resolution a simple proposition to inform -those officers that the House were, on Wednesday, to take the report on -the failure of General St. Clair's expedition into consideration. - -Mr. VENABLE objected generally to the resolution, as inconsistent with -the dignity of the House. He doubted the propriety of the measure -altogether. The gentlemen are not impeached, and therefore the House has -no right to cite them to make their appearance; and, with respect to -information, the House can command such from the Heads of Departments as -they may see proper to require. He was at a loss in attempting to -investigate the object of the resolution. He could see no purpose that -it would answer, which could not as well be obtained without it. - -Mr. WHITE offered several objections to the resolution, of a similar -import with the above. - -Mr. DAYTON supported the motion by a few remarks, stating the importance -of that information which those gentlemen alone could give. He adverted -to the report of the committee, which he observed had exculpated the -commanding General on that expedition, whereas he was of opinion that -the failure was owing to the misconduct of that gentleman. - -Mr. TUCKER objected to the resolution. He preferred the mode of -requiring that information which the House might think necessary, in -writing. - -Mr. MADISON objected to the motion on constitutional grounds, and as -being contrary to the practice of the House. He had not, he said, -thoroughly revolved the matter in his own mind, and therefore was not -prepared to state fully the effects which would result from the adoption -of the resolution; but he would hazard thus much, that it would form an -innovation in the mode of conducting the business of this House, and -introduce a precedent which would lead to perplexing and embarrassing -consequences; as it involved a conclusion, in respect to the principles -of the Government, which at an earlier day would have been revolted -from. He was decidedly in favor of written information. - -Mr. CLARK was opposed to the resolution; as a member of the committee -who made the report, he had no apprehension; with respect to -information, the report and the vouchers are before the House; and such -further inquiry may be made of the proper officers as the House may -think necessary. - -Mr. AMES supported the resolution. He noticed the impressions which the -failure of the late expedition had made on the public mind. Characters -had suffered in the general estimation. It was of the utmost importance -that a thorough investigation should take place, that if the failure of -the expedition was a mere casualty, and the fortune of war, it might be -made to appear; or if it was owing to misconduct, the blame might fall -on the proper subjects. The mode suggested to obtain information -appeared to him the best that could be adopted--the most adequate to the -object. It was due to justice, to truth, and to the national honor, to -take effectual measures to investigate the business thoroughly. This -inquiry appears to be the beginning of an arrangement preparatory to an -impeachment; on whom this will fall, he should not presume to say; but -still it places the subject in an important point of view, and shows in -the strongest manner the necessity of adopting the best possible mode -of ascertaining the real state of facts. This, he conceived, could not -be done so effectually as by the mode proposed in the resolution. - -Mr. GILES objected to the resolution. He preferred a thorough discussion -of the report, in the first place, and a comparison of the vouchers with -the report; and if, in the issue, it should appear necessary to call for -information from these officers, it could then be done; but, in the -present state of the business, to adopt the resolution would place the -committee in a very disagreeable situation. - -Mr. LAURANCE observed that the committee, in their report, say that, for -want of time, they had not been able to complete it; it is, then, -apparent from the report itself that it is immature. He stated several -particulars in the report which were incomplete, and from hence inferred -that there was material information to be received previous to being -able to form a competent judgment on the matter. He observed that, as -the information must be had, he saw no necessity of postponing the -attendance of those officers in the first instance. - -Mr. MADISON, in reply to Mr. AMES's remark, that the best possible mode -ought to be adopted, observed, that there seemed to be different ideas -entertained by the different advocates of the resolution; one seemed to -implicate the officers alluded to as parties concerned; another appeared -to consider them merely as witnesses. For his part, he thought there was -no other way of proceeding, but that of adopting one or the other of -these alternatives: either to take up the report and discuss its merits, -or for the House to begin the inquiry themselves, _de novo_. - -Mr. LIVERMORE objected to the resolution. He could not see any advantage -which would result from adopting it. He thought the causes of the -failure of the expedition were sufficiently obvious, without criminating -any body. He adverted to these causes--they were, the rawness of the -troops, and the superiority of the Indians as marksmen. On these points -he could not see what information could be derived from the Secretary of -the Treasury. He thought that the Legislature had gone too far already, -and that no satisfaction would result from further proceedings, but that -the subject would appear more and more involved. - -Mr. BOUDINOT, after stating sundry particulars relative to the state of -the public mind at the time of the report, adverted to several parts of -it which appear to criminate particular persons, some of whom were -absent at the time of the investigation on which the report is founded. -He therefore urged the necessity of receiving from the Heads of the -Departments that information which was requisite to throw light on -several parts of the report, and that this ought to be done previous to -taking the report into consideration. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS said he should vote against the resolution. He did not -think this the proper time to call for the information alluded to; nor -the mode proposed a proper one. Some remarks have been made on the -report, though it is not before the House; to these he should not -particularly reply, but would only observe, that no person had applied -to the House for redress of any supposed injury received by the report. -It has been said that the inquiry ought to have been a military one; but -it was well known that it was impossible to institute such an inquiry by -reason of the want of officers. He then gave a sketch of the mode of -proceeding adopted by the committee in conducting the inquiry, to show -that they had availed themselves of every means of information within -their power. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON said he had moved to strike out the latter part of the -resolution, but he was equally opposed to the whole of it; and since he -had heard the remarks of several gentlemen, on both sides of the House, -he was clearly of opinion that the best way was to dispose of it -altogether, and let the subject proceed in the course which it had -already taken. - -Mr. GILES observed, that he thought there was less delicacy observed on -this occasion, in respect to the committee, than was usual in this -House. With respect to the report, the vouchers on which every assertion -is founded are before the House. As to the incompleteness of the report, -it is an immaterial object; the few blanks it contains are occasioned by -the want of time to examine the voluminous papers necessary to be -examined, in order to ascertain some of the facts--facts not in -themselves of the first importance. He observed, that he had not the -smallest objection to the fullest investigation of the subject; he was -in favor of all the information that could be possibly obtained; he -objected not only to the mode now contended for, which he thought not -only liable to all the objections which had been made, but to many -others which might be offered. - -Mr. DAYTON observed that he was one of those who were not satisfied with -the report; he did not think the conclusion which exculpated the -commanding officer could be supported by the report itself. He adverted -to several facts stated in it, which showed that the commander must have -been highly culpable; he instanced the slowness of his movements, the -dilatoriness in constructing forts, and his being surprised by the -enemy. He thought that the remarks which had fallen from gentlemen, on -what he had said, were illiberal, as they had virtually impeached his -candor, when he was not conscious of deviating from its dictates. It was -not his intention to have touched on the merits of the report, but he -had been impelled to do it from the turn the debate had taken. - -Mr. GERRY was in favor of the resolution. He enlarged on the magnitude -of the object of investigation, and insisted that it was the -indispensable duty of the House thoroughly to probe the subject to the -bottom, that if any persons have been to blame they may suffer, or if -the event which has taken place, by which the national character has -suffered, and so severe and unproductive an expense has been incurred, -amounting probably to one million dollars, has been owing to -circumstances which could not be avoided or controlled, the public may -receive satisfaction as to the whole matter. - -Mr. PAGE objected to the resolution, particularly to the precedent it -would establish; but, at the same time, he was in favor of the fullest -inquiry the subject was susceptible of. He said, the mode proposed would -operate to clog the freedom of inquiry, and the freedom of debate. - -Mr. AMES, adverting to the spirit of the report, pointed out the -peculiar situation of the two Secretaries, and that they did not stand -on the same ground with other persons who are not so intimately -implicated in the matter. He alluded to the various objections which had -been urged from precedent, from the fulness of the investigation which -the subject had undergone in the hands of the committee, and from the -remark by Mr. LIVERMORE, that sufficient had already been done. To this -last objection he particularly replied, by saying that the public wanted -further satisfaction, and that the House could not justify themselves to -their constituents without a stricter and fuller investigation, that the -whole of the facts might be laid before them. - -Mr. MADISON said, the mode now proposed involved a dereliction of the -only practicable mode of transacting public business; and that, however -imperfect that mode might be, still he believed that it was the only one -that had received the sanction of experience and utility. He therefore -hoped that the resolution would be rejected, and the mode already -adopted persevered in, and the necessary information called for in -writing, from every person in anywise interested or competent to give -it. - -Mr. W. SMITH supported the resolution. He showed by the report itself, -and from the reasoning used by gentlemen in opposition to the -resolution, that the two Secretaries were implicated in the causes of -the failure of the expedition; from hence, he inferred the justice and -propriety of giving them an opportunity of exculpating themselves. - -Mr. GERRY expressed surprise at the apprehension which some gentlemen -appear to entertain of the measure of introducing the Heads of -Departments into the House; for his part he had no such apprehensions. -The Secretary will attend at the orders of the House merely to give such -information as may be required, and not as members or ministers to -influence and govern the determinations of the House. - -Mr. VENABLE objected further to the resolution; he urged the impropriety -of any of the Heads of Departments coming forward, and attempting in any -way to influence the deliberations of the Legislature. - -Mr. LAURANCE replied to Mr. VENABLE; he observed that the gentleman -appeared to mistake the object of the resolution; it was not -contemplated that either of the Secretaries should appear on the floor -of the House to influence, in any degree, its decisions; they are to be -called on merely for information. - -Mr. MURRAY objected to the resolution. The report, he observed, is made -to the House; if in the course of its discussion any further light or -information should be deemed necessary, it may then be called for, and -in that mode which shall appear most eligible; at present the question -appears to be premature. Mr. MURRAY added several other remarks, and -then the question being put, Mr. WILLIAMSON's motion for striking out -was carried. - -And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the -said resolution as amended, it passed in the negative. - -_Resolved_, That the Committee of the whole House, to whom is referred -the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the causes of the -failure of the expedition under Major General St. Clair, be empowered to -send for persons, papers, and records, for their information. - - -WEDNESDAY, November 14. - -Another member, to wit, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, from North Carolina, -appeared and took his seat in the House. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, -together with a memorial of Samuel Hodgdon, late Quartermaster General -to the Army, respectively praying that they may be heard, and permitted -to give information and explanations as to the causes of the failure of -the expedition under Major General St. Clair; which were read. The -letter of the Secretary of War is as follows: - - WAR DEPARTMENT, _November 14, 1792_. - - SIR: After the close of the last session of Congress, I saw - with much concern the report to the committee appointed to - inquire into the causes of the failure of the expedition, - under Major General St. Clair, of the 8th of May, 1792; - which, having been presented to the House in the last - moments of the session, was ordered to be printed, and has - since circulated in the public newspapers throughout the - United States, containing suggestions, most of them founded - upon _ex parte_ investigation, which have been understood - in a sense very injurious to my reputation. - - Learning that the present day was appointed for taking into - consideration the above-mentioned report, I have waited - with anxious expectation for some act of the House enabling - me to attend the progress of the examination upon which - they are about to enter, for the purpose of furnishing such - information and explanations as might conduce to a right - understanding of facts, in which I am so materially - implicated. The failure of a proposition, which I am - informed was made to the House with that view, has added to - my solicitude and regret. - - Thus situated, I feel myself called upon to ask of the - justice of the House that some mode may be devised, by - which it will be put into my power to be present during the - course of the intended inquiry, as well to hear the - evidence on which the several allegations contained in the - report are founded, as to offer the information and - explanations to which I have alluded. - - To this step I am impelled by a persuasion that an accurate - and satisfactory investigation cannot otherwise be had with - equal advantage, if at all. And my entire reliance upon the - equity and impartiality of the House, will not permit a - doubt to exist on my part that such an investigation will - be exclusively the object of their desire and pursuit. - - I have the honor to be, sir, with the highest respect, your - most obedient humble servant, - - H. KNOX. - - _The_ SPEAKER _of the honorable the House of - Representatives of the U. S._ - - -_Defeat of General St. Clair._ - -And then the order of the day, that the House do resolve itself into a -Committee of the whole House on the report of the committee appointed to -inquire into the causes of the failure of the expedition under Major -General St. Clair, being taken up-- - -Mr. MADISON suggested that the most simple, most practicable and -consistent plan would be, to recommit the report of the select -committee, and refer the present applications[44] to the committee to -whom the report shall be recommitted. He therefore moved that the -Committee of the Whole should be discharged from considering the reports -on the causes of the failure of the late expedition. - -Mr. SMITH (S. C.) observed that several objections struck him in -opposition to this motion. The House must at some period, said he, meet -this case; if it is recommitted, there will be an impropriety in -referring it to the same committee; if a new committee is appointed, -they must begin the whole subject _de novo_; and, if their investigation -should take up such a length of time as that of the former committee, -the session will be expended, and at the close of it the business will -recur on the House, and the same discussion will occur again that is now -proposed. He hoped the House would therefore proceed in the -consideration of the report, assign two or three days in the week for -the purpose, and continue the investigation till the whole is finished. - -Mr. GILES replied, that he had no doubt that the vouchers on which the -committee had founded the report would appear sufficient to justify the -decisions that they had made. He said that he did not suppose that the -applicants would adduce any new information; one of them had been called -on, he attended the committee, and he supposed that he had furnished all -the information he was in possession of. He objected to a recommitment; -as one of the committee, he was perfectly satisfied with the report; nor -did he conceive there was any additional evidence to be produced, except -it was of a recent date. - -Mr. AMES said, he perceived such a disinclination to go into the subject -as indicated a proper temper of mind in relation to the persons -supposed to be in any ways interested in the ultimate decision of the -House. He was opposed to a recommitment, as it would procrastinate -instead of expediting the inquiry. He adverted to the report. Facts are -stated; the public have been left to draw the inferences; the committee -have not explicitly criminated any body; but they have determined, in -several instances, who is not to blame. What is the situation of those -who are implicated in the causes of the failure? Every citizen knows -that, in consequence of the issue of the expedition, clamors against the -War Department, in respect to Indian affairs, have rung through the -Continent. Should public officers, who have been placed in situations of -such importance, be silent, and submit calmly to such imputations, they -would be unworthy of public confidence, unworthy to breathe the vital -air. They now apply for an opportunity to be heard in their own -vindication. Shall they be sent to a committee-room, and make their -defence against the allegations brought forward to their disadvantage, -which have been published to the world, in the hearing of perhaps ten or -a dozen persons only? He hoped not--he thought justice to them and to -the public required that they should be allowed to make their defence in -the face of the world. Will not precluding them look like a wish to -smother all further inquiry into the matter? - -Mr. BALDWIN was in favor of recommitting; he said it was the most -eligible mode, and was consonant to the practice of the House. - -Mr. MADISON remarked that it had been said a disposition was discovered -to smother inquiry. In reply he observed that, if he wished to prevent a -thorough investigation, he should be in favor of the whole subject being -undertaken by the House; because, he observed, that if a select -committee of a few members took seven weeks to form an incomplete -report, it must appear evident that so large a body as this House could -never get through the matter. He further observed, that the same reason -existed for referring the residue of the evidence to a select committee -as induced the measure in the first instance. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS said he was at first in favor of a recommitment, but on -further consideration he was convinced the House would be able to get -through the subject in a shorter time than a select committee. He added -several other reasons which induced him to be in favor of the House -proceeding with the report. - -Mr. GERRY said it appeared to him that the only question seemed to be, -whether the House or the select committee shall establish the facts. If -these facts are established by the committee, would it give equal -satisfaction as if they were established by the House? He conceived it -would not; but, should the result be a conviction on the part of the -House that some of the officers are culpable, will the House rest an -impeachment on the report of the committee? He conceived the House -ought to found their decisions on facts ascertained by themselves. It -has been said there is no difference between the House and the -committee. If this is the case, does it not imply a censure by the House -on certain characters? He thought it did. It therefore becomes the House -to discuss the report, that it may be determined on what footing it -stands. If, in the case of a contested election, the House revolted from -the idea of submitting their judgment to facts substantiated by a -committee, the case before us is of unspeakably greater magnitude. For -these, and several other reasons, he hoped the report would not be -recommitted. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of the motion for recommitting; he supported -his opinion by the uniform practice of the House, which in every case -where new evidence was adduced, always provided that the new evidence -should be examined by the same committee, who had originally brought in -the report. He said if this mode was departed from, we should find no -committee would bring forward a state of facts in future. He thought it -was not treating the committee with proper candor to decide on their -report in its present situation. - -Mr. SYLVESTER observed, that the resolution of the House at the close of -the last session, that they would take up the subject early in the -present session, precluded a recommitment; he was therefore opposed to -the motion. - -Mr. BOUDINOT was in favor of a recommitment; he said, if there is new -evidence to be brought, the House ought to wait till that is received -and reported at the Clerk's table; and this he conceived ought to be -done in the usual way, by a select committee; till the whole testimony -is completed it appeared to him the House was not prepared to take one -step in the matter. - -Mr. MADISON replied to Mr. GERRY's allusion to the ease of the contested -election. He inquired of him whether the House itself went into an -investigation of facts in the first instance? He believed he would not -say they did. With respect to the memorials, he inquired, whether, if -they had been presented at the time of the investigation of the subject -by the select committee, they would not have been referred to the -committee? If they would then have been referred, the same reason exists -for referring them to a select committee at the present time. - -Mr. LAURANCE was of opinion that a recommitment would tend to a saving -of time; the committee will not be obliged to go over the same ground -again that has already been explored; all they will be obliged to do is, -to investigate the new testimony which will be adduced. He hoped, -therefore, that the motion would prevail. - -Mr. GILES said, that the proceedings of the committee were public, and -that the Secretaries could have attended all the time, had they seen -proper. They attended but once, and then appeared extremely anxious to -get away to attend to their offices. The committee would have been -extremely glad to have had those gentlemen present oftener, and to -receive all the information they could give, and supposed they had done -it. - -Mr. GERRY replied to Mr. MADISON. He said, if gentlemen would recur to -the proceedings of the House on the contested election, they will find -that the House expressly reserved to itself the right of substantiating -the facts, which should appear from an examination of the depositions, -taken in conformity to the resolutions of the House; and here he -adverted to the mode pointed out by the House in taking those -depositions. The adverse party was to be summoned to attend to the -taking them; but in this report it appears that _ex parte_ evidence has -been admitted as the foundation on which some of the decisions have been -made. - -Mr. MURRAY supported the motion for a recommitment. He observed that the -matter, in its present state, was so incomplete that he could not see -how the House could proceed upon it. One part of the evidence only is -finished, and the report is made on that evidence. Now, we are told new -testimony is offered; let the whole be brought into view at once, and -then the House will be in a situation to judge. - -Mr. PAGE was in favor of a further commitment of the subject; but -whether to the committee who made the report, or to a new committee, he -should not take upon him to say. With respect to the admission of any -head of a department to the bar of this House, except in case of an -impeachment, he would never consent to it. It would be a precedent of a -most dangerous nature, tending to a destruction of all freedom of -inquiry by committees. - -Mr. FINDLAY observed, that the committee wished that Mr. Hodgdon should -have been present, but he did not make his appearance; the committee -therefore proceeded on the testimony they had, and as there is now new -evidence brought forward, he thought it was proper that the report -should be recommitted. As one of the committee, he should have no -objections to such alterations as might appear proper on further and -more complete investigation of the matter. - -Mr. STEELE called for the reading of a clause in the memorial of the -Secretary of War, which states that the committee had drawn conclusions -from _ex parte_ evidence. This being read, Mr. STEELE remarked on the -want of candor towards the committee, which had been shown by some of -the members in the course of their observations. He then adverted to the -above clause respecting _ex parte_ evidence, and observed that, with -respect to the Secretary of War, it was not true that the committee had -proceeded on _ex parte_ evidence; that officer, said he, was notified of -the meetings of the committee; he attended those meetings; he furnished -the committee with papers and documents, &c.; and further, he was -requested to detain officers in town whose testimony was necessary in -the matter, and that he complained of some of those officers being -detained by the delays of the committee from the recruiting service. -With respect to Mr. Hodgdon the same cannot be said, as he was not then -in the country. - -Mr. STEELE then concluded by some additional remarks on the indelicacy -manifested by some gentlemen in their treatment of the committee, and -observed that he did not apply it to himself personally, but as it -respected the committee at large, he thought proper to express the -contempt which he conceived it merited. - -Mr. DAYTON replied to Mr. STEELE. He repeated the substance of his -original remarks on the report, and added, that in the course of the -discussion he should attempt to show that the deductions made in several -parts of the report were false. Mr. D. added, that whatever the -gentleman last speaking might say, as one of the committee who signed -the report, he was certainly implicated in whatever censure it merited. - -The question for a recommitment was then agreed to, 30 to 22. And it was -accordingly - -_Resolved_, That the Committee of the whole House, to whom was committed -the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the causes of the -failure of the expedition under Major General St. Clair, be discharged -from the consideration thereof; and that the said report, together with -the documents relating thereto, including the letter of the Secretary of -War, and the memorial of Samuel Hodgdon, be recommitted to Mr. -FITZSIMONS, Mr. GILES, Mr. STEELE, Mr. CLARK, and Mr. FINDLAY. - - -THURSDAY, November 15. - -Another member, to wit, THEODORE SEDGWICK, from Massachusetts, appeared, -and took his seat in the House. - - -MONDAY, November 19. - -Another member, to wit: JOHN FRANCIS MERCER, from Maryland, appeared, -and took his seat in the House. - -_Protection to American Commerce._ - -Mr. WILLIAMSON moved that a committee be appointed to prepare and bring -in a bill or bills for promoting commerce, by the increase of American -seamen. In moving the above, Mr. W. addressed the House as follows: - -Measures have already been taken by Congress for increasing the number -of our shipping; but no effectual and _general_ measure has been adopted -for increasing the number of native American seamen. Every gentleman in -my hearing knows that there are always a considerable number of -foreigners employed on board American vessels; but none of us could have -expected, and some of us may not have heard of the injury and insults to -which our commerce has been exposed, from having British seamen on board -our ships. - -A schooner called the David and George, belonging to Portsmouth, in -Virginia, and commanded by Captain Goffigan, lately touched at Sierra -Leone, on the coast of Africa; she was navigated by eleven persons. -Three of that number who had been on shore, informed Captain Wickham who -commanded an armed vessel, that they were British subjects. Captain -Wickham went on board the American vessel and claimed the three seamen; -he also claimed wages for them. Captain Goffigan refused to deliver the -men, and declared with truth that nothing was due them. Captain Wickham -took the men by force, and by the same regulation he went into the hold, -and took as much of the cargo as he thought fit, under the cover of -substitute for wages. Captain Goffigan complained of this violence and -robbery to Mr. Clarkson, who is Governor of the Province. The Governor -replied, that he should have done the same thing, and that _he had -orders from his superiors_ so to act in such cases. - -The ship Illustrious President, belonging to Virginia, commanded by -Captain Butler, touched some time ago at Madeira, on her passage to the -East Indies. The British frigate Hyena, commanded by Captain Hargood, -lay at that time in the road. Seven of Captain Butler's sailors being -British subjects, Captain Hargood sent to take them by force from on -board the American ship, and he would have done so, had not the Governor -of the Island, remembering what he owed to the honor of his nation and -to every ship under his protection, interrupted his authority. - -The ship Fame belonging to Philadelphia, commanded by Walter Sims, on -her way to the East Indies, lately touched at Table Bay, at the Cape of -Good Hope. Captain Blith, who commanded a ship of twenty guns, then lay -in the road. One of Captain Sims' sailors, a native of Scotland, offered -his service to Captain Blith, calling himself a British subject. That -very man in Philadelphia had taken the oath of allegiance to the United -States; but the British claim was best, for Captain Blith's ship was -strongest. He took the man, sent an officer on board the American ship, -who took the liberty of opening the after hatch, searching the hold and -looking out a chest and clothes. Captain Blith justified these acts of -violence, by saying, that he had _printed instructions_ to take all who -called themselves British subjects. - -These are a few out of the numberless cases in which our ships have been -robbed of their seamen, and they are samples of the manner in which we -shall be constantly treated, while we depend on foreigners to navigate -our ships. If these cases had terminated in threats and abusive -language, to which our flag is too much accustomed, it might have been -questioned whether the nation of the offending party was to blame. When -you are told by one officer and another, that he is instructed to -distress our trade, we should, if possible, deprive them of the present -excuse. Is it not our business to inquire into the cause of this -strange conduct? By a vitiated passion for British goods, we are -universally clothed in the manufactures of that nation. Our debts -increase every year, and we labor to make her rich, while we are -becoming poor. We pour our treasures into her lap more than any other -nation under the sun. Observe the rewards! I say nothing about her -measures on our Western Frontier; but our trading ships are boarded and -plundered at discretion by her ships of war; and yet, Great Britain, -whose commerce we cherish, is the only nation that treats us in this -manner. Perhaps it is conjectured that Americans are of that species of -animals whose favor is increased by rough treatment. Be this as it may, -it is our duty to consider of the safest and surest mode of extending -our commerce. After we have been told that an American vessel having -sailors on board, who chance to have been born in the British dominion, -is subject to be deprived of her hands, robbed of her property, and -turned adrift without help, it can hardly be necessary to adduce other -arguments in favor of native American seamen; but other strong and -conclusive arguments in favor of the measure present themselves. The -merchants' property in critical situations, or in distant or obscure -parts of the world, is always most safe when a ship is navigated by men -who uniformly strive to return to their native home, and whose hopes and -happiness centre in that country to which their ship belongs. The crew -of a French brig some weeks ago, murdered their captain and mate on our -coast; that misfortune, in all probability, would not have happened, if -the seamen had been natives of France. Two of them only were of that -kingdom. Is it necessary to add, that a powerful body of seamen, at some -future day, may save us from the vast expense and danger of a standing -army? Upon this single argument of native seamen we might rest the -question. It needs neither support nor illustration. I shall, therefore, -presume, that it is our duty as soon as possible, to provide for the -daily operations of pride or injustice, by furnishing the merchant with -seamen, of whom he cannot be robbed, except by open declaration of -war--with seamen in whom he can trust--with men, who, actuated by those -passions which are inseparable from the human breast, the pride of -nation and the love of country, may serve him in every part of the -world,--to furnish the nation with a safe and strong bulwark against -foreign tyranny and invasion. - -I shall now take the liberty of moving that committees may be appointed -to bring in bills for the purposes mentioned. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON, Mr. LAURANCE, Mr. GOODHUE, Mr. BENJAMIN BOURNE, and Mr. -BARNWELL, were appointed to prepare and bring in the same. - - -THURSDAY, November 22. - -Another member, to wit, JOHN MILLEDGE, returned to serve in this House -for the State of Georgia in the room of ANTHONY WAYNE, whose seat was -declared vacant, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat -in the House. - - -WEDNESDAY, November 28. - -_Warner Mifflin's Petition._ - -Mr. STEELE called the attention of the House to the memorial and -representation of Warner Mifflin on the subject of Negro slavery. Mr. S. -said that after what had passed at New York on this subject, he had -hoped the House would have heard no more of it; but, to his surprise, he -found the subject was started anew, and had been introduced by a -fanatic, who, not content with keeping his own conscience, undertook to -become the keeper of the consciences of other men, and in a manner which -he deemed not very decent, had intruded his opinions into this House. -Had an application been made to him to present such a petition, he -thought he should have avoided a compliance with it. Gentlemen in the -Northern States do not realize the mischievous consequences which have -already resulted from measures of this kind, and if a stop were not put -to such proceedings, the Southern States would be compelled to apply to -the General Government for their interference. He concluded, by moving -"that the paper purporting to be a petition from Warner Mifflin, be -returned to him by the Clerk of the House; and that the entry of said -petition be expunged from the Journal." - -Mr. AMES rose to explain his motives in presenting the petition. He said -it was his opinion, which he had expressed to the House long ago, that -this Government could not, with propriety, take any steps in the matter -referred to in this petition; but, on the general principle that every -citizen has a right to petition the Legislature, and to apply to any -member to present his request to the House, he had handed it in. The -petitioner is a citizen of Delaware; and had the member from that State -been in the House, he should not have thought himself obliged to have -introduced it; but that gentleman being absent, the petitioner had a -right to apply to a member from any other State. He had no idea of -supporting the prayer of the petition, his mind having been long made up -on the subject. He considered it as totally inexpedient to interfere -with the subject, and had uniformly opposed the applications made at a -former session of Congress. - -Mr. LIVERMORE did not consider the motion in order, the subject not -being properly before the House; nor did he believe there was any -disposition to bring it forward. - -Mr. W. SMITH said he had seconded the motion, with a view of putting it -out of the power of any member to call it up when persons might be -absent who would find it their duty to oppose it. Mr. S. said he -admitted, in its full extent, the right of each citizen to petition for -a redress of grievances, and the duty of the House to consider such -petitions; but the paper in question is a mere rant and rhapsody of a -meddling fanatic, interlarded with texts of Scripture, and concluded -with no specific prayer. He observed it was the general practice of -Legislative bodies for members presenting petitions to read them, in -order to make known their objects, and to have them entered on the -journal. In this particular instance the practice might be attended with -danger. Citizens of the Southern States learning that papers of this -kind meet with countenance here would be alarmed. The gentleman who -presented this paper had not, on this occasion, shown his usual regard -to Southern interests. Had he stated its dangerous object, the House -would undoubtedly have refused its reception. After the proceedings at -New York, when a similar application was made, his constituents had a -right to expect that the subject would never be stirred again. He would -assure the House, that while he continued a member of it, he should -never fail to express his abhorrence against all such applications, as -they could have none but a mischievous tendency. So far from being -calculated to meliorate the condition of the race who were the object of -them, they had a tendency to alienate their affections from their -masters, and by exciting in them a spirit of restlessness, to render -greater severity towards them necessary. He therefore earnestly called -on the House to agree to the motion, and thereby convince this -enthusiast, and others, that they can never meet countenance in the -Legislature of the Union. - -The part of the motion directing the petition to be returned by the -Clerk was agreed to. The remainder was withdrawn by Mr. STEELE, the -mover. - - -THURSDAY, December 13. - -ANDREW GREGG, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the -House. - - -TUESDAY, December 18. - -A memorial of the officers, now residing in the State of New York, of -the late American Army, in behalf of themselves and their brethren, the -soldiers of the said Army, was presented to the House and read, praying -that the depreciation which accrued on the certificates of debt granted -them in reward for their military services during the late war, may be -made good to them, or such other relief afforded them as the present -circumstances of the United States will admit. Also, a memorial of the -Pennsylvania line of the late Army, to the same effect. - -_Ordered_, That the said memorials do lie on the table. - - -THURSDAY, December 27. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, -accompanying a statement of the present organization of the troops; -also, Returns of the commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers, -and privates, in the service of the United States; which were read, and -ordered to lie on the table. - - -FRIDAY, December 28. - -A memorial of the officers and soldiers of the late New Hampshire line -of the Continental Army was presented to the House and read, praying -that the depreciation which accrued on the certificates of debt granted -them in reward for their military services during the late war may be -made good to them, or such other relief afforded them as the present -circumstances of the United States will admit; which was laid on the -table. - - -_Reduction of the Army._ - -Mr. STEELE called up his resolution laid on the table some days ago, as -follows: - - "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and - bring in a bill to reduce the military establishment of the - United States to ---- regiments or corps, consisting each - of ---- non-commissioned officers, privates and musicians, - with such proportion of commissioned officers as the - PRESIDENT may think proper to continue in service; and to - repeal so much of an act, passed the fifth of March, one - thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, entitled 'An act for - making farther and more effectual provision for the - protection of the frontiers of the United States,' as may - contravene this intention.'" - -Mr. STEELE, in proposing the above resolution, said, the situation of -the frontiers, and the inefficiency of the measures adopted through the -medium of the War Department, to relieve them; the extreme burdens which -those measures were heaping on the people, and the probability of their -continuance, afforded ample scope for inquiry; and to sit silent on such -an occasion, he thought, would be to partake of and support the errors -from which those misfortunes may have arisen. The citizens of the United -States, he said, were of a peaceable and patient disposition, and they -have with cheerfulness acquiesced in the measures of the National -Legislature; but they were not become so tame as to submit to immense -and fruitless expenses, and the disgrace of their military character, to -answer any vain projects of folly and ambition, without a prospect of -guaranteeing a peace. Is it not evident, said he, that plans have been -persevered in without regard to common sense, by an unnecessary increase -of our army, until the indignation of the whole continent has been -roused up against it? - -To elucidate this position, Mr. S. recited the expenses, charges, and -increase of the War Department from its first establishment under the -present Government, to its present enormous demands, which for the year -1793, are no less, agreeably to the estimate furnished by the Secretary -of the Treasury, than $1,171,719;[45] more than double the sum -necessary for the support of all the other branches of the National -Government. The better to illustrate this subject of the Indian war, he -entered into comparative statements of the years 1790, '91, '92, and -'93; and, animadverting on the different items of calculation, he -asserted, in strong terms, that they exceeded every thing that the -history of the Indian wars afforded for twenty years back; he wished any -gentleman to enter into an investigation and comparison of the alarming -increase of the expenses of the department, and to take a retrospect of -the subject for twenty years back; and he was certain neither the -Secretary of War nor any other person could account rationally for the -occasion of such an establishment. There was no precedent to be found in -any of the States; not one of them has a War Department; neither was it -contemplated in the Constitution of the United States. Yet it has, in -the short space of three or four years, been imposing on the country -burdens which the people have at length expressed their abhorrence of; -it has been increased from $137,000 in 1789, to the extravagant demand -now required, of $1,171,719 and $50,000 contingencies for the support of -1793. This is so alarming an increase, that it calls loudly for -reformation, or the entire abolition of the department, and that another -system shall be adopted for the protection of the frontiers. Armies of -regulars will never afford protection; they have never answered any good -purpose against the Indians from the time of Braddock's defeat down to -that of Major General St. Clair, although this last-mentioned -unfortunate expedition cost the United States an immense sum of money, -and the lives of a great number of valuable officers and citizens. -History and the experience of ages have proved this fact, that unwieldy -armies will never be able to fight the savages in the wilderness; -indeed, the Secretary of War confesses the fact in one of his reports, -which Mr. S. read, wherein the Secretary accounts for the ill success of -the plans, by observing, "that it was owing to the extreme activity of -the enemy and our ignorance of the wilderness through which our troops -had to march." But the Secretary might have also added, our entire -ignorance of the mode of carrying on the war. - -Here Mr. S. took occasion to observe, that this alarmingly expensive and -useless department had crept upon the country entirely from our fondness -for taking up money on loans; for had it not been that the money was -thus obtained with a sort of facility that was not directly felt by the -people, they never would have consented to be directly taxed to support -the parade of so unnecessary an establishment. This is my reason for -being an enemy to loans; they deceive citizens, and lull them for a -time, in order to levy double contributions afterwards. - -But it may be demanded, how are the frontiers to be protected, if the -army was disbanded? In reply to this Mr. S. said he wished that the -former two regiments might be retained to garrison the forts, and that a -militia near the scene of action should be raised, who would be able to -make five expeditions against the savages in a year, if necessary, -instead of one solitary fruitless attempt, which, upon an average, is as -much as a regular army can do; and sometimes not so much, for it does -not appear that any expedition took place during the last twelve months: -moreover, it is not so easy for the Indians to discover the plans and -approaches of militia, as they do the slow motions of an unwieldy army, -dragging their heavy artillery through the woods. The fact is, that the -Indians have the best intelligence and know every motion of the army, -and they can even calculate the time and place to meet them, and the -numbers of their tribes that will be necessary to receive such a force; -they will always be prepared when a regular army are to march against -them. But if the business be left to a militia of the frontier -inhabitants, who know the country, and have their property at stake, it -would not cost the Government one-fourth part of the expense to give a -complete protection, and to repel all the depredations of the savages, -if that be our intention. If it be the protection and happiness of our -brethren on the frontiers--if we are serious to check the progress of -expense, the motion which I have brought forward will be the most -effectual means, and to establish a proper Militia System. On this -motion, therefore, will depend the question, whether we are to continue -a fruitless warfare in the present mode for seven or ten years, or shall -we adopt a better system, which will not cost one-fourth of the expense, -and which would completely check the Indians; nay, it would entirely -exterminate them, if that was thought to be necessary. - -In order to bring the matter to a point, Mr. S. suggested, that it would -be proper to disband all the troops except the two former regiments of -two thousand one hundred and twenty-eight men, which would be more than -sufficient to garrison all the fourteen posts on the frontier. These, -with a militia, under proper regulations, and the officers appointed by -the PRESIDENT, would be found a more certain protection. The garrisons -are at Fayette, Hamilton, Steuben, Knox, Tammany, Telfair, Harmar, -Franklin, Jefferson, St. Clair, Marietta, Massachusetts, Matthews, and -Knoxville. Most of these are commanded by captains, except two that are -commanded by majors: now, reducing the establishment to two thousand one -hundred and eighteen non-commissioned and privates, and average them -amongst the garrisons, it will give one hundred and fifty-two men for -each; the sum saved by this reduction would be six hundred and -twenty-four thousand six hundred and seven dollars--the difference -between the appropriations for 1792 and those required for 1793. - -With regard to the expense that would be incurred from militia -expeditions, none of them would cost above thirty thousand dollars; and -four or five of those, if made in a year, would have ten times the -success and effect that could be expected from the present system. Had -the militia plan been adopted, we should not at this day hear such -murmurs from our constituents, nor would the people be saddled with -heavy taxes and imposts; but, on the contrary, the money that has been -actually wasted would have sunk a considerable part of our National -Debt. But by the system of warfare lately adopted of dragging heavy -cannon and camps into a wilderness, of which we have confessed our -ignorance, if it be allowed any longer, our Treasury will be exhausted, -and the public revenues which the Secretary of the Treasury reported as -affording a prospect of income beyond the permanent wants of Government, -will not all together be sufficient for our War Establishment; we must -fly to loans, and pursue a system of ruin and distress to the country. -Under these impressions, said Mr. S., I have introduced the proposition -now before the House; and I entreat gentlemen to think seriously of it, -for thereon, in a high degree, will depend the real protection of our -frontier, the safety of our garrisons, and the ultimate ease, happiness, -and tranquillity of the continent. - -Mr. HARTLEY, although he did not wish to advocate the continuance of a -standing army, yet he was averse to disbanding the troops at present, -while it is known that a negotiation for a peace is going forward, and -may not perhaps be brought to a decision before the spring. It is a -well-known maxim in politics, that a peace can always be easiest -obtained by a nation which is prepared for war. He noticed the great -prudence and economy of the PRESIDENT in forming the army into a legion; -and he differed in opinion with Mr. STEELE respecting the insufficiency -of regular troops. No instance could be quoted where regulars had -engaged the Indians without beating them. - -Mr. PARKER said he had always abhorred the idea of keeping up standing -armies in this country; and he believed he could from experience -demonstrate that it was an unwise measure at the commencement of the -present Government; for it answered no better purpose than throwing out -a hint to the British and Spanish Governments, on our Northern and -Southern frontiers, to increase their forces, and even to administer -countenance and support to the Indians, which they never would have -thought of doing, but for our vain attempt at military parade. He -mentioned a letter which had been written by Lord Dorchester to the -Indians, informing them "that Prince Edward had arrived with a number of -chosen warriors to protect them," meaning against the United States. - -Thus, said Mr. P., we have been warring with our finances for the last -three years, by keeping up an army in imitation of European plans, which -are formed in countries altogether unanalogous to America in every -possible view. The consequences have been unsuccessful, and produced -military disgraces, by sending into the field a collection of beings, -collected from stews and brothels and from the most unprincipled of -their species, to fight against Indians well supported on both sides, -and fighting, as they do, for their property, their hunting ground, -their wives, and children, instead of calling forth the militia, the -natural strength of the country. But the present plan has involved us in -such difficulties that we are not now able to provide for the payment of -our debts, without the medium of loans; nay, we are now called on for a -small sum of two hundred thousand dollars at the bank, which would have -been easily paid out of the surplus in the Treasury, were it not that -our finances have been exhausted by those ill-judged expeditions under -General Harmer and General St. Clair. He mentioned the naked, starved -appearance of the men who were sent out--with shoes that would not last -three days, clothes that did not half cover their miserable bodies from -the inclemency of the weather, and food sometimes not fit for dogs. He -could mention the particulars, if required, of some other very -abominable abuses, but refrained from it at present. He concluded by -expressing the same opinion of militia that Mr. S. had done; and, with -regard to the starved soldiery who had appeared in the woods, they were -despised so much by the Indians, that they called them Coatmen, and shot -them down like wild turkeys. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS was apprehensive that it would be a dangerous experiment, -so suddenly to alter the system of defence already adopted. He remarked, -that when Mr. STEELE had stated the War Department to have cost the -United States three million five hundred and forty thousand dollars, he -had committed a great mistake, for there was one million one hundred and -seventy-one thousand dollars of that sum not yet granted. [Mr. STEELE -explained, that he had gone by the estimates for the appropriations -proposed, &c.] Mr. FITZSIMONS did not wish to advocate a standing army; -and if any better mode of defence for the frontiers could be digested, -he would be amongst the foremost who would agree to it. - -Mr. WHITE could not entirely approve of the motion for striking out, -unless a proper substitute for defence was fairly brought forward. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON said, it was not disbanding an army of men, but the -disbanding an army of paper, that he conceived to be the object of the -motion, and it should have his support. He mentioned an affair between -ninety militia and two hundred and forty Indians, wherein the militia -_received_ them much better than any of the regulars could boast of -having done! - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) reverted to a clause in the law which -empowers the PRESIDENT either to raise those three additional -regiments, or to forbear to raise them, or discharge them, &c., provided -he thought it consistent with the safety of the country. From this Mr. -S. said it was evident there was a sort of indelicacy in the motion, as -it implies a doubt that the PRESIDENT might fail in this instance, or -vary from his usual line of prudence. - -Mr. DAYTON said, he would vote for referring the motion to a Committee -of the Whole, although he disapproved of it. He should not have risen -had he not heard from the two North Carolina members the strangest -perversion of argument and the most extraordinary reasoning. The -gentleman who has brought forward the motion, said Mr. D., has decried -every idea of energy and efficacy in regular disciplined troops -considering them not only inefficient, but contemptible, when employed -against Indians; and, to confirm this assertion, he has instanced the -expedition under General St. Clair, when it is well known that there -were not, in fact, two companies of regular disciplined infantry among -them. The other gentleman (Mr. WILLIAMSON) has extravagantly commended -the back-country militia, and extolled them for their efficiency and -success in Indian warfare; and instances the affair of a rencontre -between Major Adair, with ninety militia, against two hundred and forty -Indians. In reply to this, Mr. D. felt himself compelled to remark, that -that affair did not appear so successful in his mind; for those very -militia were unquestionably surprised and beaten, inasmuch as they were -driven into a corner, until the Indians captured all their horses and -other property in their camp; and what is still more disgraceful, one -half of the Major's party deserted him at the commencement of the -action, and secured themselves within their garrison. - -Whilst he was up, Mr. D. would further observe on the extraordinary -speech of the mover of the question, that it was such as no person could -have ever expected to hear within the walls of that House. It seemed to -be calculated to prejudice the minds of the people against the whole -Administration; and it appeared still the more extraordinary that such a -speech should come from a gentleman who so lately expressed the nicest -delicacy in matters of order and decency; for, in this instance, he has -committed the greatest breach of decorum and propriety, by a direct -censure of the Secretary of War, the PRESIDENT, and both Houses of the -Legislature. [Here several members called Mr. DAYTON to order.] He -proceeded, however, and appealed to the House, whether he had not drawn -a just picture of the expressions of the gentleman from North Carolina. -The very calculations which he has so laboriously produced have been -questioned by other members. In regard to the surprise expressed by the -gentleman at the increase of the War Department from 1791 to '92 and -'93, it was not so strange that five thousand men would require greater -supplies than two thousand. Yet the gentleman is surprised at the -increase of expense, and seems to imply that abuses have been committed; -but if an increase of expense for protecting the frontiers has accrued, -the censure ought to fall on the Legislature for directing it by their -laws, and not upon the Executive, who are merely the instruments for -carrying them into effect. - -Upon the whole, Mr. D., however he might himself be in favor of a -reduction of the army, if it stood simply on its own merits, yet, as it -now struck him, it being connected with some recent circumstances, he -would therefore oppose it as tending only to embarrass the Executive in -their attempts towards a pacification. Moreover, he said he knew the -temper of Indians so well, by having lived amongst them, that there was -not a nation on earth more extravagant in their demands, when they saw -the force against them was lessening. So that what is intended by the -motion for reduction at present, as economical, may turn out to be, in -the end, the most expensive of any. - -Mr. WADSWORTH was also against the motion; and Mr. AMES closed the -debate by a few observations on the necessity of committing to a -Committee of the Whole, as there would be no other way of answering the -industrious calculations of the mover. - -The question on committal was carried, and made the order of the day for -next Wednesday. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 2. - -_Military Establishment._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -motion of the 28th ultimo, for reducing the Military Establishment of -the United States. - -Mr. WADSWORTH rose and observed, that he had pledged himself to the -House last Friday to show that the calculations of the gentleman from -North Carolina were not true; and, if true, that the inferences drawn -from them were not correct. There was a material difference (he said) -between the appropriations quoted by the gentleman and those which he -would now read to the House. Here he read a statement which he had -prepared, from which it would appear that Mr. STEELE had overrated the -contingencies, hospitals, quartermasters, forage, cavalry, ordnance, -pay, and subsistence, each of them. - -The total difference between Mr. STEELE's and Mr. WADSWORTH's -calculations, from this representation, was $27,080 in the year 1790. - -In like manner, Mr. W. read his calculations for 1791. On comparing -which with those of Mr. STEELE, he said there was a difference in the -total of $252,312; and in the total of 1792, he showed a difference of -$567,530. He also particularly objected to Mr. STEELE's statements of -the ordnance expense for 1793, which had been called $23,000; but that -sum, although it comes under the head of ordnance in the estimate, is -not altogether appropriated for the purchase of cannon; the whole amount -of the expense of cannon, he said, had been very trifling--about $700 -or $800. Having proceeded thus far in attempting to controvert the -calculations of the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. W. said, it would -indeed have been an alarming thing to the United States, had they been -founded in reality. But the gentleman had not confined himself to -misstatements--he had gone further; for he had "lamented the necessity -of quoting even truths from that office"--the War Office. Here Mr. W. -stated that the quotation which Mr. STEELE had made from a report of the -Secretary of War had not been correctly quoted. After Mr. W. had thus -represented Mr. STEELE's calculations as erroneous, and his quotations -as misstated, he said that the House ought to beware of not being led -astray by them. He next observed, that the gentleman had laid a great -deal of blame of the present hostilities between the United States and -the Indians, and the expense attending them, to the War Department. But -Mr. W. conceived that there were other causes to be assigned for the -Indian war. There had never been a day, from the first settlement of -America to the present moment, without our being at war with the -Indians, in one place or another. The history of the country, the -resolves of the old Congress, every book published by Congress, show -this to have been the case. [Here he read some quotations from the -resolves of 1784, to show the appropriations for defraying the expenses -of Indian wars.] He wished the House to take a retrospect of the -subject, from the beginning of those troubles down to the late -application for assistance from the National Government by the Governor -of Georgia. Although they have three thousand men on the frontier of -that State, yet it is not found sufficient, and the Indians have driven -them in. Indeed, there has been a time when the town of Savannah has -been obliged to keep a guard. - -It was not his intention to introduce commendations of the officer at -the head of the War Department, but he thought it proper to observe, -that he is not to be blamed on account of the expenses referred to. He -is no more than an instrument acting under the Supreme Executive. It is -the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES who has found it necessary and proper -to recommend the establishment of a military force. It is, therefore, -not the Secretary's, it is the PRESIDENT's war; and to assert that the -Secretary has had any undue influence with the Legislature, would be -altogether false; for, on the contrary, his reports have been treated -with disrespect in this House. Was not his report at New York ridiculed, -and called "preaching," &c., because it was in favor of peace, and spoke -with great humanity respecting the hardships often inflicted by the -whites on the Indians? Indeed, the Secretary of War has been uniform in -his endeavors to bring about a durable peace. This, however desirable an -object, has been found hitherto impracticable, and the Indians have -lately carried their depredations to so great a length that the -PRESIDENT has judged it necessary to repel them by force. They have -murdered in cold blood our ambassadors of peace, whilst holding a flag -of truce in one hand and reaching the other out in friendship to the -Indians. Perhaps they may have been excited to this degree of barbarity -by many causes. It is hard to determine which are the greatest -aggressors--the settlers on the frontiers or the Indians. The murder of -the Moravian Indians, the proclamation of Congress against our own -people, all show that the Indians have ground for complaint. - -Here Mr. W. recapitulated the affairs of the banditti at Fort St. -Vincennes; the representations of Judge Innis, of Kentucky, from 1783 to -1790, respecting the people there who could not be restrained from the -commission of crimes against the peace of the country. From these causes -and the common fatality of the times, our attempts towards peace have -proved abortive, and the war has been prolonged, but the Secretary is -entirely innocent of promoting it. - -In regard to the other arguments of the gentleman (Mr. STEELE) -respecting the militia, that they would afford either a cheaper or -better defence for the frontiers, he had his doubts. - -Mr. W. now went over the whole history of the frontier wars; a line of -posts was once established and garrisoned by militia, yet they could not -prevent the Indians from coming within sixty miles of Winchester, and -murdering, scalping and plundering the women and children. After the -peace of 1762, the Indians drove in the militia, and advanced as far as -Cumberland and Carlisle, in the State of Pennsylvania. - -But Colonel Boquet, with the remains of two regiments of regular troops, -who had just before arrived from the West Indies, marched against the -savages, and hired pack-horses to carry some of his sick men. With these -regulars, Colonel Boquet fought them and drove them with the bayonet -from one end of the country to the other. The battle began at one -o'clock the first day and lasted until night, and was renewed the next -morning with superior force by the Indians; yet they were entirely -discomfited. This news went to Fort Pitt and Virginia, and revived the -spirits of the country. Virginia raised more troops--and Colonel Boquet -dictated a peace to the savages. - -These instances furnished sufficient arguments to show the superiority -of regular troops over militia. But he could mention many others, viz: -General Hartman, with eight hundred chosen men, giving a total defeat to -the Indians; Colonel Willet's attack and defeat of them; and General -Sullivan's affair in South Carolina. - -As to the defeat of Harmer and St. Clair, their men ought not to be -reckoned regular troops. They were raw recruits, undisciplined, &c. But -even they stood better than the militia; for the militia ran away, and -those who remained to fight the savages fell, to their honor be it -spoken, whilst the militia, who were the advanced guard, ran and threw -away their guns, nay, their coats. - -Upon the whole, the balance of argument, Mr. W. thought, must appear in -favor of regular troops. - -He further took occasion to animadvert on what Mr. WILLIAMSON had said, -when that gentleman expressed himself so strongly in favor of the -militia under Major Adair. That officer, Mr. W. observed, had been a -Continental officer, and from his own words, it appeared that he had no -very great opinion of the militia, for they had fled to the garrison; -and the Indians obtained their ends, notwithstanding the _reception_ -given by Major Adair. Theirs was the triumph, and when they retired, it -seems to have been not so much a matter of necessity, as a thing of -choice, on their part. The loss of horses, one hundred, perhaps, and the -expense of this affair, amounted to a much greater sum than any regular -troops would have cost. The party under Major Adair, supposing it to -consist of a hundred men, cost one hundred dollars a day, reckoning the -attendant circumstances--and considering it, as Mr. W. did, a complete -defeat--for there are no circumstances to prove that it was -otherwise--the militia having deserted him and left the few regulars he -had exposed to the whole of the danger. - -Mr. W. did not stop here in his details of military disgraces--he -recounted many other cases. He mentioned the Grant's expedition against -the Cherokees, &c. And still he drew a balance against the successes of -the militia; for, he said, they had constantly been defeated, and the -country left exposed to the depredations of the enemy. - -Much has been said, observed Mr. W., of Clark and Sevier's successes. -They, indeed, afford an exception to the cases above mentioned; but how -far were they successful? The immense expense of men and money, and the -interruption given to the agriculture of the country by calling away -from their business so many industrious citizens, is a thing beyond the -power of calculation; for my part, said he, I do not know figures enough -to count it up. For the truth of this position, and for the enormous -waste and expense incurred by militia, he appealed to one of the members -(Col. PARKER) on the other side of the House, who had experience in the -matter, whether it was not absolutely impossible either to bring militia -under a proper discipline, or prevent their enormous waste. A whole -brigade of regular troops would not cost so much as one regiment of -militia to a country. The militia of Kentucky have cost more blood and -wealth than all the American war; when the circumstances are considered -of calling out men from the tillage of the field, &c. It is enormous the -number of lives, and the aggregate loss is countless. The causes of -these things are, want of order and discipline, &c. And those causes -have produced _a universal reprobation of the war establishment_; but -all those who condemn are not well acquainted with those causes; they -judge from hearing only one-half of the truth in our newspapers. It is -supposed a peace can be easily effected, but I know of no peace that -has not been effected by force; for, although promises have been made -and peace often treated for with the Indians, yet they have as -constantly broken those promises. This is a good reason for keeping up -the present force of the United States. We are now able to meet the -Indians and demand a safe peace. But the gentleman from North Carolina -calls our establishment a mere military parade, which, it is said by -another gentleman, (Mr. PARKER,) will only tend to rouse the Spaniards -and the British, &c. - -He went on quoting the conduct of the Indians and their threatening -manner, when they told you, "go to your own side of the Ohio," &c. What -language do they now hold out? But I am not at liberty, said Mr. W., to -mention it, as it was confidentially communicated to this House, and -read with our doors shut. However, it is well known to all the members -present the insolence of that language. For my part, I have little hopes -of a peace from any promises of the Indians; and although a negotiation -is said to be upon the carpet, I can never depend upon the promises of -savages who have so often broken them. - -In speaking of the recruits that have been lately raised for the regular -army, Mr. W. opposed his opinion to that of Mr. PARKER, who mentioned -them in such contemptible terms as having been collected from the stews -and brothels of the cities, &c. For his part, Mr. W. had often seen -them, and he believed they were equal, if not superior in spirit and -appearance, to most of the soldiery during the British war, and better -than the soldiery were at the close of the war, with some exceptions, -such as respects the men who cost £300 each. Before he could quit the -subject, he begged leave to mention another instance of the efficacy of -regular troops; it was the affair of General Wayne's surprise, when the -light-horse dismounted, and cut the militia to pieces, and the infantry -drove them off at the point of the bayonet. - -He ridiculed the idea of calling out a militia upon every emergency. -Where are they to be formed? In Pennsylvania it would be attended with a -tenfold loss, if they must quit their daily labor. He would admit that -the character of the Kentucky militia had been brave and intrepid; but -there was still occasion for a new war, and no ultimate protection -afforded to the frontier. - -The Governor of North Carolina had complained of a friendly Indian being -murdered, &c. On the whole, he thought it improper to take militia to -fight Indian warriors. He admitted that some abuses might have been -practised in the regular army, but they were as little, if not less, -than in any other army he could remember. - -He insisted that the scheme of the Department of War was not a scheme of -the Secretary, but a scheme of the United States from the PRESIDENT down -to the members of the Legislature, and the meanest of their -constituents. He took a retrospect of the great skill of the PRESIDENT -after Braddock's defeat. The PRESIDENT must be the best judge of the -disposition of Indians, and the best way of treating with them; he -approves the scheme of the present war, and shall we imprudently attempt -to change his plan, by sending out a few men to be knocked on the head -by the Indians, as those _coat_ men were? so called by the gentleman -from Virginia, (Mr. PARKER,) but instead of coat men, he, Mr. W. thought -they might also have been called petty-coat men, &c. He finished his -observations by again remarking, that the calculations of the gentleman -(Mr. STEELE) who had introduced the motion for reducing the present war -establishments were founded in error and ought not to have any weight -with the House. - -Mr. STEELE.--When the House have deliberated upon the merits of the -gentleman's arguments, and the truth of my statements; and when they -have decided the question, I will submit to their decision; but, in the -mean time, I insist that my calculations are founded on the reports of -the Secretary and the public printed documents on the table, of the -appropriations and laws, &c. I wish the gentleman (Mr. WADSWORTH) had -told us where he has found those papers, from which he attempts to -controvert such authentic documents as I have quoted. I wish he had made -the House understand them; for my part they appear unintelligible. - -Mr. WADSWORTH said it was from the laws. - -Mr. STEELE explained some things in his former statements; and in reply -to some suggestions that might be thrown out with respect to his -indelicate mode of attacking the Secretary of War, or the PRESIDENT, he -defied any member to show that he had acted beyond the line of his duty, -or that he had ever shown any disrespect towards the PRESIDENT. On the -contrary, he was of opinion that that gentleman's character would for -ever be secured against all the possible attacks of ingratitude or -malice, &c. He also used some other very handsome expressions on this -occasion. But whilst he was ready to declare these things, and to prove -that he had no personal intentions of injuring the Secretary of War, -yet, he would not suffer himself to be deprived of his privilege, whilst -he had the honor of a seat in that House; and, in the present instance, -he thought it his duty to hold up his opposition against the rapid -increase of expenses in all the Departments of Government, which he said -were grown to an enormous burden upon the people, and unwarranted by the -constitution; that they therefore ought to be immediately checked. He -hoped, for the future, gentlemen would confine their arguments to -measures, and not apply them to persons. He sat down, for the present, -with this proviso: that he would reserve to himself the right of -answering to what might be advanced against his proposition, which he -could prove to be salutary; and that the present system is fundamentally -wrong. - -Mr. HARTLEY was against adopting the motion under the present -circumstances of the country, and he entered into a particular -investigation of the merits of the question. When the last law for the -more effectual protection of the frontiers passed, the subject now under -consideration was very fully and ably discussed, and the gentlemen who -were averse to the augmentation, had several alterations made to satisfy -them. - -Instead of the PRESIDENT's being obliged to raise the whole of the three -regiments, he was to exercise his discretion either to make the -augmentation complete, or raise a part, and he had authority to disband -them after being raised. - -The 12th section of that law is thus expressed: "It shall be lawful for -the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to forbear to raise, or to disband -after they shall be raised, the whole or any part of the said three -additional regiments, in case events shall in his judgment render his so -doing consistent with the public safety." - -We should therefore consider whether circumstances have so materially -changed since that time as to render it proper that the Legislature -should interfere, repeal the powers given to the PRESIDENT, and -discharge the three regiments. This necessarily leads us first to view -the situation of our finances, and the state of the frontiers at and -immediately before the time of passing the law. The extent of our -revenue was not as well known then as at present, and every good man -deprecated the misfortune which obliged him to increase the taxes. The -war was a disagreeable one, but necessary, if peace could not otherwise -be obtained. The Legislature considered the expense, and were of opinion -that we had means and abilities to defray the same. Many murders and -ravages had been committed by the savages on the frontiers. One army had -suffered in the year 1790, and nearly a whole army cut off on the 4th of -November, 1791. And we had every reason to suppose that the Indians -would act in great force against us. Our finances are still respectable. -It is true, I should be happy if we could apply the money towards -discharging the national debt already contracted, but the unfortunate -situation of our frontiers prevent it. War, though an evil, may (from -the present disposition of the world) be sometimes necessary, when -nations are unreasonable and justice cannot be otherwise obtained. -Hostilities have lately been committed on our troops commanded by Major -Adair, and several of the Southern tribes show themselves inimical, and -we have no absolute assurances that we shall have peace in the spring. -The agreement by some tribes to a suspension of hostilities, was only -convenient to them as it protected their families for the winter. - -The great object of the additional armament was to obtain peace: this is -not yet effected. May we promise ourselves more success in negotiation -by laying down our arms, or by retaining them? History is in favor of -the latter. Indeed, I hold it as a maxim, that the nation which is -prepared for war can most easily obtain peace. For my own part, I can -discover no existing causes for altering the system established by the -act to which I have before referred. The expense has been made a very -serious objection. It ought to have weight; but where measures have been -proper, America has not regarded it. She has freely expended her -treasure to support her rights. We are bound in justice and honor to -protect our fellow-citizens on the frontiers; we demand from them an -excise. They require from the General Government protection. I am for -making peace with all the Indians upon reasonable terms; but any country -which has been fairly purchased from the Indians, they should not be -permitted to repossess or hold by conquest. If an offensive war be -necessary says the gentleman from North Carolina, regular troops are not -the most proper to carry it on. They are more expensive, and unfit to -meet the savages of the wilderness. As to the expense, I have partly -answered before. But if the gentleman is to have five expeditions in one -year, I believe he would find that his calculations are not correct: a -misfortune to either detachments or party would bear very hard upon the -district they came from; the partial loss of regulars would not be -equally felt, very few of them having families. - -I have a high opinion of the backwoods riflemen, but I am confident that -we cannot certainly rely upon their turning out as often as they might -be wanted; we could not rely on such uncertainty; and yet this is -offered as a favorite project. If you cannot rely upon them, you may say -that the ordinary militia can be drafted. You would find them unfit for -such a service; they would in general be composed of substitutes, -inexperienced and undisciplined, and it would be unfair to take them all -from the frontiers, and some of the States, or at least one, have no -militia laws. I am for retaining the regular troops. - -The PRESIDENT has practised economy in organizing the troops voted for, -and I am told they have made considerable progress in discipline; they -are formed into legionary corps, composed of horse, riflemen, -light-infantry, and battalion-men. The three former will be fit for -active service in the field, the latter for the common duties in the -camp or garrison. I will allow volunteers and militia their full credit; -but I do not think the regular troops merit the disparagement attempted. -Volunteer corps have not been free from misfortunes. Colonel Crawford, -at the head of five hundred volunteers from Virginia and Pennsylvania, -was defeated in the Western country, and he was burnt at the stake. -General Braddock, it is said, was obstinate, and his European troops -were undisciplined for such a service. The army under General St. Clair -was lost, because the men were undisciplined and unfitted for that -service. I can mention several instances where regular troops have -successfully penetrated the Indian country, among warlike tribes, with -success: Colonel Montgomery, into the Cherokees; Colonel Armstrong to -the Kittaning; Colonel Boquet's campaign of 1763, and 1764. Three -detachments of the American army, in the year 1778, (one under the -command of General Broadhead, one under Lieutenant Colonel Butler, and -the last commanded by your humble servant,) penetrated the country -possessed by the Six Nations. Neither of the detachments was large, and -the last had to contend against superior numbers. In General Sullivan's -campaign, the year following, his vanguard beat an equal, if not a -superior number of Indians. I might mention the Roman legions; they -almost constantly were successful against those they called Barbarians, -until their enemies adopted the Roman discipline. I have a high opinion -of the personal bravery and prowess of an Indian, but I do deny that -they can act to the best advantage in large bodies. They have not an -experience of that kind; disciplined troops would have the advantage. I -reprobate the idea of a standing army, which might endanger the liberty -of this country; but I consider the troops contemplated in the act of -Congress to be absolutely necessary, until peace shall be obtained, and -therefore shall vote against a reduction. Every step has been taken, and -I dare say will be taken, by the PRESIDENT, to procure a peace without -bloodshed. Our messengers of peace have, in some places, been murdered, -and yet he has sent messengers to others. - -Mr. CLARK.--One would suppose from the style of the debate, that we were -going to abandon the frontiers, the safety of the country, &c., and to -disband the whole of the army: for, the arguments of those gentlemen who -are opposed to the motion seem to be calculated to mislead the House in -that way, and to prove that the question under consideration is for -reducing the whole of the troops now existing. But this is so far from -being the true state of the matter, that it is not even contemplated to -disband a single man of them; it only goes to the prevention of raising -any more troops, which perhaps would be the safest policy under the -present circumstances and temper of the United States. There are about -three thousand three hundred effective men already raised, who are -sufficient to garrison the forts on the frontier, agreeably to the -gentleman's statement who introduced the motion; and, indeed, it seems -as if they were fully competent, if we believe the report that the whole -of the Indian force, at the time of meeting General St. Clair, and when -they exerted themselves to the utmost, was but one thousand two hundred -warriors. - -Mr. C. made some further remarks on the sentiments which had been -expressed by the gentleman last up; and, in speaking of the -discretionary powers vested in the PRESIDENT, he was of opinion that the -situation of the Chief Magistrate in this respect was extremely -delicate: for, supposing he might be inclined to stop the recruiting -service, and reduce the war establishment; and supposing the frontiers -to be again harassed, it might be charged to him for not having kept up -the legal complement of men. Under this impression, Mr. C. wished that -some way could be adopted of conveying to the PRESIDENT the sentiments -of the Legislature on this subject, without the tedious form of a law. - -Mr. PARKER.--The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. HARTLEY) has been -reading a section of the law, to inform us of the discretionary powers -vested in the PRESIDENT, which we have heard from other members before -he rose, and which we all knew as well as himself. I am sorry to hear -gentlemen, when they have no other resource of argument left, so often -resorting to the name of the PRESIDENT, to carry their measures; and -yet, in the present instance, I much doubt whether those sentiments are -avowed by the PRESIDENT, which have been laid to his charge in the -course of this debate: however, if they were really so, this is not a -sufficient reason to silence me, or to prevent me from delivering my own -sentiments, and those of my constituents who sent me here to do so. He -vindicated the character of the militia, in opposition to the -disgraceful picture which Mr. WADSWORTH had painted of this respectable -class of citizens, whom he (Mr. P.) insisted were always more spirited -soldiery, and fitter for fighting the Indians than the regulars, -although they did not always move at the sound of a trumpet or beat of a -drum, which were necessary to rouse the attention of heart-broken, -mercenary troops, who seldom act but from force, or fear of the -whipping-post. Militia were not so well acquainted with military show, -or the display of columns; neither did the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES, when acting Major of a regiment little better than militia, find -that the doctrine of tactics was of any great service to him. - -Mr. P. further mentioned, that the forerunners of General Burgoyne's -army were taken by General Stark's militia near Bennington; and the -capture of the whole of Burgoyne's army was chiefly brought about by -militia, as General Lincoln had very few regular troops at the time of -his surrender. In short, the militia bore a conspicuous share of almost -every engagement during the war. At Trenton, the men who took the -Hessians were little other than militia, as they had been raised but a -short time before. Mr. P. could vouch for them, as he was a witness of -their activity and bravery. Another instance offered of their success at -Charleston, after it was taken by the British and the regulars drove -off; the militia kept possession of the country and supported -themselves. He also remembered having been called away from the regular -army in the North to take the command of some militia in Virginia, who -supported themselves for twelve months without either pay or provisions -from the United States; and yet they were never once defeated or -disgraced, neither did they leave the country unprotected and exposed; -and all they received for their services was certificates which -necessity obliged them to alienate at three shillings in the pound to -persons who are now in possession of them drawing an annual interest of -nearly as much, and who never perhaps had a good wish toward the -Revolution. He next quoted the militia under Colonel Mercer, at -Yorktown, who were successful in a skirmish with the enemy under -Tarleton. These and several other arguments in favor of the militia, -whom he still maintained to be the best security of a country, were used -by Mr. P. He would not advocate the raising them from all parts of the -United States, but only in such places as the safety of the frontiers -required it most: they were not, to be sure, accustomed to the display -of the column, &c., but they knew how to take the Indians in a proper -way through the woods. - -It gave him pain to hear the character of the militia so much traduced, -and it also was a painful reflection to think of the two disgraceful -defeats of our armies under Generals Harmar and St. Clair; indeed, it -would have a strange appearance to the world, to think that this country -is inhabited by the same men who lived in 1776. He repeated what he had -before asserted, that most of the present regulars were collected from -the stews and brothels of the cities, and had none of the spirit or -principles of the honest yeomanry, who composed the militia during -former wars, when every man turned out impressed with a good cause. - -It was not, he said, his desire to criminate any individual in office, -although he would maintain his right of expressing his opinion on that -floor, so long as he held a seat in the House. But with regard to -myself, said he, I am not disposed to pour incense into any man's cup; I -respect the PRESIDENT as much as any man, and think him incapable of -doing wrong, at least on those principles that foreign despots are -supposed to do no wrong, because the people are their subjects, and dare -not to say their sovereigns do wrong, and dare not contradict this -tyrannic maxim. If the House, or if the PRESIDENT, have committed an -error, they ought to correct it; for my part, I conceived the whole of -the plan wrong from the beginning. From the present appearances, he was -convinced we should get no peace with the Indians, unless it were -dictated by the British agents in Canada; for it was clear, as long as -they can do us the injustice to withhold territory from us, we can have -little reason to expect their aid or friendship in bringing about a -peace which is so desirable. He hoped to live to see the day that -America will be able to show herself superior to her enemies, and -chastise them: at present, it would be improper to engage in any war, if -it could be avoided. - -In addition to the foregoing reasons offered by Mr. P. for being opposed -to a war establishment, he also remarked, that it was from a desire to -see the public debt redeemed without resorting to new _taxes_; for if -_they_ once should get fixed _there_, (pointing up to the Senate -Chamber,) we should never be able to withdraw them, whether they were -necessary or not. He concluded by a hearty wish that the motion made by -his friend from North Carolina might succeed. - -Mr. BOUDINOT was against the motion, as he thought any immediate -alteration of the present system would be attended with dangerous -consequences, under the present circumstances of the United States. He -did not think it would be justifiable to alter it. It would show an -instability in our public measures, especially at this moment, when we -have done every thing to bring about a peace with the hostile Indians: -and, when it is just advancing to the season for effecting it--when it -is at the eve of completion--shall we rashly counteract the whole? and -after having brought the enemy, who were so much elated on account of -their recent success, to a proper sense of our power and force to impose -an honorable peace, would it not be extremely imprudent to lessen our -own consequence before we have accomplished the object? The Indians -would, in this case, most indubitably raise their demands in proportion -to what they supposed to be our weakness. Mr. B. added several other -observations. - -Mr. WILLIS had always been strongly impressed with a dislike for -standing armies; but when he considered the situation of the frontiers, -and particularly of the State of Georgia, he must give his vote against -the motion. Neither did he think two regiments by any means a sufficient -force, even to garrison the posts. - -On motion, the committee rose and reported progress. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State, -enclosing a list of the several persons employed in his office, with the -salary allowed to each, pursuant to the resolution of this House of the -thirty-first ultimo; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -bill making compensation to the widows and orphans of certain persons -who were killed by Indians, under the sanction of flags of truce, and, -after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported progress. - - -THURSDAY, January 3. - -Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, from the committee appointed, presented a bill to -regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions: which was received, and read -twice, and committed. - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -bill to make compensation to the widows and orphans of certain persons -who were killed by Indians, under the sanction of flags of truce; and, -after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee -had again had the said bill under consideration, and made several -amendments thereto. - -_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, do lie on the table. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, -enclosing a list of the persons employed in the several offices of his -Department, with the salary allowed to each, pursuant to the resolution -of this House, of the 31st ultimo; which were read, and ordered to lie -on the table. - -_Military Establishment._ - -The order of the day being called for, the House went into Committee of -the Whole, (Mr. _White_ in the chair,) on Mr. STEELE's motion for -reducing part of the present military establishment of the United -States. - -In reply to the speech made yesterday by Mr. WADSWORTH, and which had -been expressed in such strong language, Mr. STEELE thought it necessary -to make a few observations, as a preliminary, before the House went -further into the debate. - -The gentleman from Connecticut had disputed the calculations which he, -Mr. S., had produced. Perhaps the gentleman's calculations may be right, -and perhaps both of our statements may be so; but with respect to those -which I produced, if the acts of Congress are false, if the reports and -estimates of the Heads of Departments on your table, Mr. SPEAKER, are -false, then my statements are wrong, or "untrue" as the gentleman -expressed it, and for which, I hope, on more cool reflection, he will -not adhere to. Mr. S. then read the acts of Congress of the 29th of -September, 1789, 26th of March, 1790, and 12th of August, same year; the -11th of February, 1791, and 23d December, 1792, &c., from which he -clearly proved that every item of his calculations was exactly quoted. -He knew of no surplusage unexpended at the War Department, but $140,000 -as reported by the Secretary of the Treasury; if any gentlemen in the -House knew of any other, he hoped they would mention them. For his part, -he thought the estimate for 1793 showed very little savings any where -from the grants of the preceding year, but it contained demands for new -grants much larger than for any former year. This, however, was a -subject he did not at present mean to say much on, until he should hear -the sentiments of other members. He therefore sat down with a -reservation, that he would take the liberty of replying to such -arguments as might be adduced against his proposition. - -Mr. WADSWORTH disavowed any intention of being indelicate in his -expressions yesterday, toward the gentleman from North Carolina; and if -he had, in the warmth of debate, said any thing to which that gentleman -could take offence, it was not meant so, and he was ready to retract it. -He could not, however, avoid taking notice, that the gentleman's -arguments appeared to him to convey a strong censure on the Executive, -and to spread abroad improper impressions. The principal error which he -dwelt on, was that of quoting the difference between the appropriations -of 1789 and 1790, to be so great as appeared from that gentleman's -statement. But the fact is, that the gentleman had overlooked the laws, -and instead of quoting the amount of the _two_ appropriations made in -1789, he had only mentioned the amount of _one_, consequently this was -giving an improper impression of the real comparative appropriations of -those two years; for, when they are taken in the whole, the difference -is not so great, nor the increase so much as Mr. STEELE exhibited it, by -$27,080. In like manner, the comparative increases of the other years, -1791, 1792, and 1793, have been misstated, and the truth is, that the -total increases are not less, but _more_ than the gentleman represented -them by the sum of $567,530.72. - -Mr. CLARK hoped the gentleman last up did not suppose that the House was -going to war with the Secretary of War. He sincerely wished that some -means should be adopted of conveying the sense of the House to the -PRESIDENT, who would thereby be considerably relieved from the delicate -situation in which he now stands with regard to the discretionary powers -vested in him. Before Mr. C. sat down, he suggested the idea of filling -up the blank in Mr. STEELE's motion with the word three, so as to limit -the military to three regiments. - -Mr. MILLEDGE liked the spirit of the motion, in regard to the prevention -of standing armies; but he was against its being put in practice at the -present time. He differed from the gentleman from New Jersey, and as his -motion had not a second he would proceed. He wished the question under -consideration to go to a Committee of the Whole, that a fair and open -discussion of every point of the important subject might be brought into -view. The situation of the State he had the honor to represent, had been -mentioned in the course of debate; he therefore felt himself called on -to deliver his sentiments; that he was persuaded there was not a member -in the House who more ardently wished for peace than himself, or who -would go further to promote so desirable an object, as putting an end to -a savage war, and an enormous public expense; but he was of opinion that -the reduction of the military establishment would not answer either of -those purposes; that it well became members to take into consideration -such parts of the Union as lay exposed, and then judge the propriety of -the intended measure; that it was well known that Georgia was a frontier -State, bordered on one side by a nation with whom a just understanding -and intercourse still remains to be settled by treaty, and on the other -by a warlike tribe of Indians, the most numerous of any on the -continent, ten thousand warriors, besides the Cherokee nation of three -thousand and five hundred--a State, in proportion to its wealth, and in -proportion to what it contributes to the General Government, of the -fewest inhabitants, an extent of frontier from the river St. Mary to the -northernmost line, full three hundred miles--a country hardly at any -period enjoying perfect safety, since the commencement of the -Revolution. My constituents said he, adopted the Federal system, from a -hope that we should be protected: some of them at this moment, have -never been able to return to their habitations, which they left at the -commencement of the war; and I am warranted in saying that a part of my -constituents are now throughout the State under arms. Let members for a -moment place their constituents in the situation of mine, and let me ask -them if they would not demand the protecting arm of Government? As yet -we have experienced little more than the enforcing a treaty, that has -not been complied with on the part of the British, which has reduced -some of our first citizens to a state of dependence on those who not -long ago were their avowed and open enemies, and a deprivation of our -territorial right, for the yielding of which a permanent peace and -permanent line were to be established. Of the peace we have experienced -no great share, and as for the permanent line, it still remains to be -run, and, from well-grounded information, the half-way conduct of the -Creeks the other day with Mr. Seagrove, gives very little reason to -expect it. Such was the situation of his State. But to the point: he was -of opinion that we set out wrong in warring with the Indians at any -rate. Unfortunately for us, the event has not answered the design, and -we are now reduced to that state that hardly any change can mend. The -unaccountable success of the Indians has so elated them with their -prowess,--and which likewise has presented views to the English and -Spanish they never dreamed of; and the federated situation of the -different tribes occasioned him not to hesitate in pronouncing that the -several frontier States would be more or less exposed to the cruel -ravages of a savage warfare. If the customs of savage tribes did not -direct them towards us, they were incessantly excited by the British and -Spaniards to amuse us with false pretences of peace, while they were -engrossing the advantages of their trade. The aged Indians kept to their -hunting, and the young men were gratified in the military exploits with -the blood of our fellow-citizens. In this situation the frontier of the -United States, a distance of not less than fifteen hundred miles, must -be garrisoned. He left it to gentlemen to calculate what force would be -required for that purpose, if troops should be employed in no other way. -Militia, he said, were for sudden invasion; they were scattered when -they returned, and must be protected while at home. The jealousy of the -English, and their augmenting their force, surely ought not to occasion -the reduction of any part of ours; if any thing, it ought to have a -contrary effect. He likewise said that it would be necessary to view the -early history of our country, and find what had been the conduct of -Spaniards and Indians about the commencement of the present century. The -Spaniards, at the same spot where they now are, by their treachery, when -they were at peace with the English, at a time when the Carolinians -little suspected, when they imagined they were in perfect alliance with -the Indians, the Yamasses, Creeks, and Cherokees, those Indians, by -their instigation, massacred one hundred and thirty of their -inhabitants, and drove the rest into Charleston. The inhabitants of the -capital of Georgia are as much exposed as the Carolinians then were; a -distance of twenty miles from Savannah, places them in an open, -uninhabited country, to the Creek nation, and within that twenty miles, -thinly inhabited on account of the nature of their cultivation. What had -happened, he said, might happen again: the Spaniards had not changed -their policy. If, therefore, we are forewarned, ought we not to be -forearmed? That, from their dangerous situation, even on a peace -establishment, there ought to be at least five hundred troops on that -frontier. - -If public officers have misapplied the public money, the constitution -pointed out a mode to punish them. The Government belongs to the people, -the officers are their servants, we are their Representatives, and we -ought to do them justice. He conceived it was praiseworthy in any member -to afford any aid or information in his power to bring these things to -light; that he felt it his duty to make strict inquiry into the -expenditure of public money; that he was sent by his constituents to -protect their property, and in doing that should vote against the -present proposition. - -Mr. FINDLAY observed that a difference of opinion existed in respect to -the motion for reducing the army. The mover was for filling up the blank -with _two_ regiments; but Mr. CLARK had proposed _three_, and was -against discharging any of those already enlisted. The principle of the -motion was what he wished to speak to. Passing by the comparative view, -so much alluded to in the course of the debate, of militia and regulars, -he struck at once into the heart of the question. The redemption of the -public debt, from the savings to be made by the reduction of the army, -seemed to be a principal object with some members, but in his opinion, -it was no more than a secondary one: the defence of the frontier is of -superior concern. - -The origin of the war goes much farther back than that of the present -Government; it arose out of the war with Britain; and it has been ever -since changing for the worse, until it has at length assumed a very -alarming complexion; for it has united a greater number of tribes than -has ever been known, and it has exposed a much greater extent of our -frontier. With regard to the mismanagement or abuses, if any there were, -it was no place to discuss such subjects by desultory debating in this -House, whilst there were other modes open. He did not, however, believe -that any material abuses had taken place indeed. This war is not one of -the faults chargeable to the Executive, for it might with more justice, -perhaps, be said to have had its origin in the ineffectual measures of -the Legislature. The first Congress assembled under the present -Government found the Union in a state of war; and although one regiment -was stationed at Pittsburg, yet the militia were not relieved from -actual service. But the lately raised troops may perhaps be found more -effectual, as it is said there is an excellent system of discipline -established amongst them. - -With regard to the argument that the Union cannot support so heavy an -expense by new taxes, he was of opinion that every consideration ought -to give way to the safety and protection of the country. - -A particular plan is set into operation for accomplishing a peace, and -it ought not to be arrested without a trial being made. The ill-defined -law authorizing the PRESIDENT to call out the militia, and the levies -under General Harmar, did not answer the end intended, for the time of -their enlistment had nearly expired ere they had reached their -destination; but if General Harmar had carried out two regiments of -permanent troops, he could, without the assistance of the militia, have -destroyed all the Indian towns and villages that stood in his way, and -he would have completed the object of erecting a line of posts which -would secure a lasting peace; but from the weakness of the force and the -inefficacy of the law, the purpose was arrested at a critical moment, -and the vengeance of the Indians roused to the utmost pitch; instead of -their fears being alarmed, the next step of raising another regiment was -of a piece with the former weak policy; for the encouragement was -insufficient, and the miserable two-dollar men who were raised for a six -months' service--their fate is too well known, and will be long -remembered. They arrived at the wilderness with clothing that lasted -only to the time they reached the scene of action, and those who were -not cut off by the enemy were left to starve with cold in the most -inclement season. - -The fatal catastrophe of this campaign has only served to elate the -Indians, and render them insolent, as appears from their treatment of -our messengers under flags of truce. The parsimony on those occasions -has been the cause of a double expense. - -In opposition to this it may be said that those parsimonious plans were -recommended by the Executive, and only enacted into laws by the -Legislature. This, however, if it were the fact, is no apology for the -Legislature, for they have no right to cast their Legislative -responsibility upon the Executive Department; nor can they do it without -a breach of trust towards their constituents. The members knew that the -encouragement of pay and time of enlistments would never answer any good -purpose; the want of resources could have been no reason for that -parsimony toward the defence of the frontiers, because it is known that -we found revenue enough not only to pay the interest of the public debt, -and to support the Government, but even to pay the debts of the -individual States. The conviction of these mistakes induced Congress at -last to make adequate provision, and now an attempt is made to withdraw -the means before the end is accomplished. The other branch of the -Legislature has prevented us from giving higher wages to encourage the -recruiting service; but notwithstanding all this, it appears to go on -with considerable success. - -Here he mentioned something of the confidential communications which he -was not now at liberty to explain. The gentleman who says that two -regiments are sufficient to garrison the forts, ought to consider that -garrisoning those is not the only object in contemplation. If we expect -to exist as a nation we must protect the whole frontier, and make it the -interest of the Indians to be at peace with us. - -But do gentlemen consider the consequences of throwing all internal -defence and distant expeditions upon the militia? Is it not enough that -they already stand as a picket guard to their brethren who live at ease; -that they eat their bread in the fear of their lives, and are frequently -embittered with the view of mournful incidents; but that we must lay a -deliberate plan for increasing the number of their fatherless children -and childless parents? - -To say that those States who have frontiers, ought to be left to protect -themselves, is a very anti-Federal sentiment, which he was sorry to hear -advanced in that House. Neither is it generous to say we will pay the -expense, and let them fight for us. Do gentlemen contemplate to what -issue these principles would lead? Do they not observe that the fate of -the Government is deeply involved in the decision? Perhaps I may be -asked, Did not the States depend chiefly upon their own exertion for the -defence of the frontiers under the old Congress? Yes, they did, and were -better protected than since that period. But let it be recollected that -at the time the States had the command of their own resources, and the -laying and executing their own plans, that the Indians were not so -formidably combined. But that since the States had not the power of -retaliating, nor the means of gratifying with presents; since the -Indians have been solemnly told to look away from the little fires of -the States, to the great fire of the Union, they have looked upon us as -a more formidable and dangerous foe, and made their arrangements -accordingly; and European nations, and emissaries among them, have -improved upon the circumstance, and excited and aided them in their -union and exertions. - -He made some further remarks on the impolicy of oppressing the militia -at Marietta, &c., and asked if it were possible that those unfortunate -few could be able to protect the whole frontier against the united force -of the Indians? - -He agreed with those who said that the sense of the people of America -was in favor of peace; but the question is come to this. It is not to -begin a war that we have raised this army, but to procure a peace, and -so soon as this end is attained, the army will be discharged. It is -raised to protect, not to oppress, or to aid in governing our citizens. -I know, said he, that standing armies have always been sources of -oppression and aids of tyranny. Our people may long be governed without -such aids; their situation will not admit of abuses from standing -armies, nor would the citizens submit to them. - -He was confident that the army would be discharged by the next -Legislature, as soon as a prospect of our affairs will admit it. The -present prospects were not of a very flattering nature, and therefore it -was good policy to keep up the force at the present crisis; and it would -be dangerous to repeal the law under the circumstances. - -The present Indian war is essentially different from any former one. -When Britain and France divided North America betwixt them, if the -emissaries of both excited the Indians to war, the power of both -afforded protection. When Britain became possessed of the Western posts, -and many tribes of Indians commenced a war, the British Government -conducted the war, carried it into the Indian country, and by the dread -of their arms procured peace; but the Indians were not then supported by -other powers. In the present war, the Indians, who at that time knew -nothing of us, have combined to make it a common cause; and no superior -powers interest themselves in our favor. No: they conceive our interest -to be inimical to theirs. But if they did not receive encouragement, -protection, and supplies from our superior neighbors, a peace would soon -be procured. The gentlemen who support this resolution know well how -that matter stands, and they know explanations here are not convenient. -He concluded by declaring that he could not vote for the motion. - -The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again. - - -FRIDAY, January 4. - -SAMUEL STERRETT, from Maryland, appeared, and took his seat in the -House. - -The House proceeded to consider the amendments reported yesterday by the -Committee of the whole House to the bill to make compensation to the -widows and orphans of certain persons who were killed by Indians, under -the sanction of flags of truce; and the same being read, some were -agreed to and others disagreed to. And then the said bill, being further -amended at the Clerk's table, was, together with the amendments, ordered -to be engrossed and read the third time to-morrow. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the -Treasury, enclosing lists of the persons employed in the several offices -of his Department, with the salary allowed to each; also, a letter -accompanying certain statements relative to foreign loans, which have -been made by the United States, under the authority of the President, -pursuant to the resolutions of this House of the 24th and 27th ultimo; -which were read and ordered to lie on the table. - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -bill to regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions; and, after some time -spent therein, the committee rose and reported progress. - - -SATURDAY, January 5. - -A petition of the inhabitants of the city of Hudson, in the State of New -York, was presented to the House and read, stating the inconveniences -under which they labor, from being obliged to register, enter, and clear -their vessels at the port of New York, and praying that the said city of -Hudson may be made a port of entry. Referred to the Secretary of the -Treasury, with instruction to examine the same, and report his opinion -thereupon to the House. - -An engrossed bill to make compensation to the widows and orphans of -certain persons who were killed by Indians, under the sanction of flags -of truce, was read the third time and passed. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, -accompanying the copy of a message of Cornplanter and New Arrow to Major -General Wayne, dated the 8th of December last, relative to the measures -which they have taken to conclude a peace, on behalf of the United -States, with certain tribes of hostile Indians; which were read and -ordered to lie on the table. - -_Military Establishment._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the motion of the 28th ultimo, for reducing the military establishment -of the United States. - -Mr. MOORE said, that there was not sufficient information before the -House respecting the prospect of a peace, to warrant a sudden reduction -of the army. He referred to the abuses which had been hinted at in some -of the branches dependent on the War Establishment, but he did not -believe there had been any worth much notice. He also mentioned the -abstruseness of attempting an investigation into the origin of the -war--whether the frontier settlers, or the Indians, were in fault, was a -difficult thing to determine; but from many circumstances, it appeared -to him, the white people were often guilty of committing depredations. -This was, in his opinion, a good reason why the protection of those -frontiers should not be intrusted to the militia that would be raised -there. Shall we intrust the conduct of that matter to the very persons -who it has been alleged are often the aggressors? Can the President, at -the distance he is situated from the Western territory, check all the -irregular proceedings that might happen amongst such a militia? There -were two obvious reasons for passing the law of the 5th of March, 1792, -for the protection of the frontiers by regular forces. First, it could -not be expected that militia would always prove successful against the -Indians, because the latter are gaining more experience every day in the -mode of warfare, and there can be no dependence on a treaty between -those militia and the Indians. The second reason was, that the -President was strongly impressed with the necessity of establishing the -greatest degree of harmony between the United States and the Indians, by -encouraging and protecting a trade with them, and that this could be -easiest and best effected by establishing a line of forts along the -frontiers, to be garrisoned by regular troops. Mr. M. next mentioned -something of the manners and customs of the Indians, whose practice it -is to spend most of their time on their hunting grounds, leaving their -old men, women, and children, in their towns. They have no regular plan -of government, and can only be attached by influencing some of their -chiefs. The system of harassing them by burning and destroying their -towns at the time they are employed in hunting, has come recommended to -us by experience, and regular troops are the best to be employed in this -service. Their present inexperience will soon be done away by a proper -mode of discipline, and why may not these troops be soon instructed? Are -they not as capable of receiving instructions as militia, and may we not -expect more subordination amongst them, than could possibly be -established over militia? He concluded by declaring himself against the -motion. - -[Here the SPEAKER informed the Chair that lie had received a -confidential message from the PRESIDENT. The committee then rose, and -the galleries were closed for some time.] - -The House having gone into Committee, the debate was renewed by Mr. -WILLIAMSON, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. STEELE. - -Mr. STEELE rose after Mr. MADISON, and said he was perfectly in -sentiment with that gentleman, in regard to the propriety of inserting -an amendment to the motion, which might secure a sufficient -appropriation to carry on offensive operations against the hostile -Indians, by the militia of the frontiers; and if an alteration was -proposed to that effect, he would second it. The attention of the House -to this question speaks its importance; it is probable one more -important will not occur during the present session. On its decision are -suspended the hopes and fears of the people of this country, their hopes -of a speedy and honorable peace, and their fears of a standing army, -with its usual retinue of political evils. - -The present is regarded as an interesting epoch in the affairs of the -United States; and it has been perceived, with serious regret, that -while our national character is forming, (he hoped it was not yet -formed,) it seems to partake, in some respects, more of the unnatural -spirit of monarchy, than of the mild and conciliatory temper of a -republic. The principle of keeping up standing armies, though highly -obnoxious to the great body of the people, has not been equally so to -the Government; they have been maintained and increased without -affording protection, or even defence to the frontiers. The supplies -necessary to support the establishment begin to discover an alarming -derangement of the public finances, and it is now incumbent on the -House of Representatives to check this growing mischief. - -Mr. S. then adverted to the effects of standing armies on the morals and -political sentiments of the people, wherever they had been employed; of -the expensiveness of all such establishments, and of the wicked purposes -to which they had been, and might be subservient. He said he had -prepared himself to have spoken largely to this point, and to have -quoted the pernicious effects of such a policy in other nations; but the -debate having been already lengthy, and the committee probably fatigued, -it would be sufficient for his present purpose, for the members to make -their own reflections, and to mark the rapid progress of the army from -1789 to 1792, both in numbers and expenses. Instances from foreign -history are superfluous, when our own affords such ample testimony. The -establishment began with one regiment: it is now five. The House was -called on in 1789 to appropriate a little more than $100,000 for that -Department; in the present year, above $1,000,000 is demanded. The -reason of this extraordinary additional expenditure, this unexpected -increase of the army, if not enveloped in darkness, has been founded on -policy hitherto not satisfactorily explained. He said, however lightly -he was disposed to touch this part of the subject, he could not avoid -reminding the committee of the memorable sentiments of 1776, in regard -to standing armies; of the universal abhorrence of the Americans to them -at that time; and, to illustrate it more clearly, he read the -expressions of some of the States in their Bills of Right. These were -the sentiments of the Whigs of 1776, and to such Whigs he wished to -appeal on this occasion. He also reminded the committee of the recent -debates of 1788, of the amendments proposed in several of the State -Conventions; of the unanimity which prevailed among all ranks of people -on this particular point; and it is now to be lamented, said he, that -while the ink which recorded these objections to the constitution is yet -drying, the evil then predicted has taken place. - -If there is a subject on which much deliberation is unnecessary, in -order to form a right opinion, it would be in regard to military -establishments. The feelings of a free people revolt at their -continuance, and every man who reads or thinks, can point out their -dangers. He said he felt more anxiety for the fate of this motion, than -commonly marks his conduct, because this is the last session that will -ever afford him an opportunity to trouble the House with his sentiments -on this or any other subject. The motion was brought forward to -discharge a duty which he owed to his constituents, to satisfy his own -conscience, and to afford that protection to the frontiers which they -deserved, and to save the public money. If an uncommon degree of zeal -was discovered in supporting the motion, it ought to be attributed to -these, and no other motives. - -The question will now soon be taken; if adopted, I shall be among those -who rejoice; if rejected, among those who have always submitted with a -proper degree of decency to the decision of the majority. But in any -event, the public will know that we have asserted the sense of the -people against standing armies; that we are anxious to defend the -frontiers against their enemies; that we have recommended a system of -economy and efficiency, instead of profusion and delay; that we have -recommended a system calculated to produce victory and peace, instead of -disgrace and war; and that we wish to rescue the Government from the -intoxication of the times, and all the apery of military establishments. - -He said he had been attentive to the arguments of the opposition, and -they led principally to four points. If neither of these positions be -found tenable, the motion will certainly succeed; and that they are not -tenable, is believed and will be shown. - -1st. It has been boldly asserted that the PRESIDENT is the author of the -existing system. - -2dly. They call in question the sincerity of our declarations in wishing -to afford effectual protection to the frontiers. - -3dly. They deny the competency of the militia. - -4thly. The impolicy of reducing the establishment, when a treaty is -expected. - -In regard to the first, we deny that the PRESIDENT is the author of this -plan of prosecuting the war. Not having avowed explicitly himself that -he is so, no document appearing to confirm that opinion, we are -justified in attributing a system which appears to us ineffectual to his -Secretary, and not to him. - -It is true, that the Secretary is only a finger of his hand, and the -intimate connection which must of necessity subsist between them, -perhaps, is the ground upon which the assertion has been made. The -Secretaries are all equally near to the PRESIDENT, and if it be admitted -that he is the author of this, he may, with equal propriety, be said to -have been the author of every system on general subjects which either of -them have recommended. - -Was he the author of the report on the fisheries? Was he the author of -the plan for establishing the National Bank? It is known that he was -not, and circumstances might be mentioned (which are withheld from -delicacy) to confirm this opinion. - -Was he the author of the Funding System? Some gentlemen in the -opposition to this motion, would not be willing to give the PRESIDENT -that credit if he claimed it, and some who support this motion would not -only be sorry that the PRESIDENT had even claimed such a credit, but -believe that it was in no respect attributable to him. The same -gentleman (Mr. WADSWORTH) who first asserted that the PRESIDENT was the -author of this military plan, in the same speech admitted it to be the -war, as well as the plan of the House, and then argued on the necessity -of stability in our measures. It is not very material to the present -question whose plan it is; being a public measure, we are justified in -offering our objections to it; and this is the first time that I have -heard it publicly asserted that a Government should persevere in an -error, because they had undertaken it. If the plan be a good one, it may -be supported by reason; if a bad one, no name ought to be called in to -prop it up. - -The inconsistency of that gentleman's (Mr. WADSWORTH's) arguments not -only supports the motion before the committee, but shows the wretched -shifts which have been used to defeat it. - -It has been said, in the course of the debate, that individual members, -and even this House, are incompetent to decide upon the efficacy or -inefficacy of military plans. In answer to this it may be said, that if -we are not all Generals, we are all members, and that we have the -privilege of thinking for ourselves and for our constituents. To admit -this doctrine in the latitude which has been expressed, would be to -introduce military ideas indeed; it would be to make soldiers of us, -instead of Legislators: nay, worse than that, it would be to revive the -exploded doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance. - -In regard to the sincerity of his intentions to afford effectual -protection to the frontiers, Mr. S. said that he had been sufficiently -explicit; that a feeling for the sufferers had dictated this motion; -that he was sorry that it had been whispered in the ears of some of the -members that it was intended to withhold the necessary appropriations, -and divert them to other purposes. - -If two regiments were insufficient to garrison all the posts necessary -for defence, he would even, under certain restrictions, consent to -continue the three sub-legions, thereby enabling the PRESIDENT to -establish double the number of posts now erected, if he should deem it -advisable. Regular troops being incapable of active expeditions against -Indians in the wilderness, his wish was to abandon that system and -confine them entirely to the garrison. - -The next objection to the motion is the incompetency of the militia; and -to support this opinion the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. WADSWORTH) -has made this expression, "that as to the expedition under General St. -Clair, the regulars were few, and not to be named when compared with the -number of the militia." The truth is, there was not a man engaged that -day as a militia man, except the advance guard commanded by Colonel -Oldham, which consisted of about three hundred, perhaps a few more. The -field return of the day preceding the action being in the War Office, -this can be ascertained with precision. The balance of the army on that -unfortunate day, had been enlisted as regulars, were fought as regulars, -even clothed as regulars, and, poor fellows, died like regulars. They -suffered the fate which awaits every regular army destined for similar -expeditions. Even the handful of militia employed that day, did not -deserve that name; they were chiefly substitutes for drafted men from -the ceded territory. This draft became unavoidable, from a misfortune to -General Sevier, which Mr. STEELE related. - -The attack on Major Adair has also been mentioned as a proof of the -incompetency of militia, and Mr. S. insisted that the only inference -which could be drawn from thence was, that one hundred militia were able -to repel, but not destroy, near two hundred Indians. This event he -conceived was in favor of and not against his motion. - -He next adverted to the arguments of Mr. WADSWORTH, in regard to the war -of 1762; of the establishment of posts in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and -of the success of Colonel Boquet's expedition. If two worn-out regiments -at that time were sufficient to defend the frontiers, and, with the aid -of the militia, to terminate the war, two new regiments, with all the -vigor which the gentleman described them to possess, with the aid of -established posts, and a much more effective militia, can certainly be -equal to the same end. After examining Mr. W.'s arguments for some time, -Mr. S. said, that when analyzed, it would be found that they proved more -than they were intended to prove; but the merits of this motion did not -require that he should take advantage of these indiscretions. - -He showed from the history of 1762, that though posts were established, -with a handful of regular troops in each, they never answered the -purpose of effectual protection; but the frontier people were always -obliged, in a great degree, to defend themselves; that they were best -calculated for that service, and that they would perform it now with -alacrity and success, if well rewarded. - -Mr. S. then refuted the objection against the militia on account of -their waste and expense which Mr. W. had alluded to. The law allows a -mounted volunteer, furnishing himself with a good horse, good arms, -provisions, and every other necessary, except ammunition, at his own -risk and expense, one dollar per day. The exact expense of such an -expedition can be calculated. Whether successful or not, the charge to -the public cannot be increased. The contractors, quartermasters, and -hospital departments, are all avoided, with the abuses, expenses, and -frauds, attending such establishments. Mr. S. enlarged upon this point, -and said that these were always found to be the most expensive -departments in any army, and that the Federal Treasury had felt their -effects already. In favor of the militia, it may be asked, who fought -the battle of Bunker's Hill? Who fought the battles of New Jersey? Who -have fought the Indians so often with success, under Generals Wilkinson, -Scott, Sevier, and others? Who marched in 1776 under General -Rutherford, through the Cherokee nation, laid waste their country, and -forced them to peace? Who fought the battles of Georgia, under Clark and -Twiggs? Who fought the battles of South Carolina, under the command of -an honorable member now present? Delicacy forbids me to enlarge upon his -successes in his presence. - -Who fought the ever-memorable battles of Cowpens, King's Mountain, -Hanging Rock, Blackstocks, the pivots on which the Revolution turned in -the Southern States? In short, who fought all the battles of the -Southern States, while we had a mere handful of regular troops, scarcely -the shadow, much less the reality of an army? - -They were all fought by freemen, the substantial freeholders of the -country--the men attached to the Revolution from principle, men who were -sensible of their rights and fought for them. - -Such men will not enlist in regular armies, nor will any one who has the -disposition or the constitution of a freeman. It would give me pain to -describe the trash which composes all regular armies: they enlist for -three dollars a month; which, in a country like the United States, is a -sufficient description of their bodies as well as their minds. Such men -are not fit to combat the most active enemy in the world. Here Mr. S. -read Major Gaither's and Major Trueman's depositions, respecting the -defeat of the 4th November, 1791, stating that they could not see the -Indians, because they were behind trees, &c.; that the regular troops -tried, but could not fight that way; that they seemed to be stupid, and -incapable of resistance; and that if any General in the world had -commanded such men that day, he must have been defeated as they were. - -An additional argument, and one of the most weighty, too, against -regular expeditions, in this species of warfare, is, that, by the -slowness of their movements, the force of the enemy may be concentrated; -time is afforded them to form alliances, and to confederate against -those whom they consider a common enemy. It is otherwise with militia -incursions. He offered a number of reasons to show that it was so, and -how essential for the interest of the United States to adopt a policy -calculated to detach the tribes from each other as much as possible. - -But it has been said, these men were not regular troops. Mr. S. asked, -what, then, were they? They surely were not militia. The last objection, -and the least serious of all, to this motion, is the expectations of a -treaty in the spring. Mr. S. said, if he thought the gentleman who threw -this difficulty in the way believed himself that we have any reason to -expect a permanent peace from the treaty now proposed, it might deserve -an answer. Facts are more to be relied upon than words. From the channel -through which these propositions have come--from the whole complexion of -their talks, and from the late attack on Major Adair, it may safely be -asserted that no peace can be effected in the spring. He recapitulated -some of the difficulties which this motion had to conflict with, and -said that he could mention others, if he was at liberty to do so. Under -such circumstances, success is hardly to be expected; but he knew the -merits of the motion deserved it. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE, who had hitherto sat silent, observed that nothing new -had been advanced in the whole course of this long debate, but what he -had heard mentioned last winter in that House. He was then opposed in -principle to a war establishment, and he still retained the same -opinion; but, from the complexion of affairs, it appeared to him that he -ought to submit, and give up his own opinion to the general sense of the -Legislature, which at present seemed to be for persevering in the system -already adopted, and which, as it had scarcely had time for a fair -trial, he thought, therefore, ought not to be arrested, perhaps in the -very instant when its efficacy was to be expected. If peace should not -be established during the next summer, he would then join with such -members as would propose a better system; but as the law provides for -the discretionary powers of the Executive, it would be best to rely on -them. A standing army, he said, was a thing impossible to be -accomplished in the United States whilst the House of Representatives -have the power of granting money only for two years at any time; he -therefore had no fears on that score. An army existing in time of peace -was the idea he had of a standing army, and not an army embodied for -only a year or two. Upon the whole, it would be as expensive to disband -the present force, and to institute another of militia, &c., as it will -be to keep up the existing establishment for a little longer time; it -was therefore his advice to let the matter rest where it is, with the -Executive, for the present. But, in case of a peace not being -accomplished within a reasonable period, he would join those who would -be for a change in the system; and he was clearly of opinion that a -system might easily be adopted, not only to protect our frontiers by -repelling the savages, but to exterminate them altogether. - -Mr. FINDLAY felt himself inclined to say a word or two more in reply to -Mr. STEELE. He thought it would be unjust to lay so much of the weight -of protecting the frontiers on the militia only. He expatiated on the -meaning of the word _militia_ as defined by law, &c. He also remarked -that, however it might be fashionable to despise the levies, yet amongst -them there were examples of great bravery to be found, and particularly -in one battalion of the unfortunate army on the 4th of November, 1791. -He noticed the well-conducted retreat of Major CLARK, and the success of -General Broadhead up the Alleghany. It was unjust to expect to raise -enough of militia in the back parts of Pennsylvania; and the inhabitants -of Virginia are so dispersed near the frontiers that they cannot be -expected from that State. With respect to the men who went out with -General Harmar, and whose time of enlistment expired soon after they -reached the scene of operations, many of them remained and settled in -that country. He again repeated the injustice of calling out heads of -families from one part of the frontier; and above all, he lamented the -risk and loss of lives. But, if it should be determined to carry on the -war with militia, let them be called from all parts of the United -States. The burden already laid on a part of the inhabitants is -extremely unequal, and must not lie longer on them. Let the troops now -raising be disciplined. I am informed that many of them are considerably -advanced in point of discipline, and may before spring become expert -soldiers. Let these go on in the present system, and let the militia -also be kept up or increased, until the object shall be attained for -which the law was intended, and then, and not before, it may be proper -to talk of reducing the present establishment. We are now in a situation -that it would be extremely imprudent to retreat from. - -Mr. MURRAY delivered some opinions on the preceding arguments of all the -members, and remarked that the army, under the present establishment, -had no right to be compared to or called a standing army; it bore no -more comparison to a standing army than a chameleon to an owl. - -Mr. WADSWORTH closed this tedious debate with a few further -explanations. He accounted for the difference between his calculations -and those of the gentleman from North Carolina by observing that he got -some of his statements from the War Office. Mr. STEELE's were taken from -the appropriation laws, and in one instance he had underrated the -appropriations. With regard to the opinions he had delivered on the -militia, he had never meant to traduce the character of militia, because -he had often experienced their brilliant actions; his arguments went no -further than to show that the operations of regular troops were in -general more effectual. He never wished to detract from the honor of -militia, but only to remark that they were not so efficient as regular -troops. - -The question on the original motion being now put, was negatived. - -Mr. WILLIAMSON did not entirely approve of the motion in its present -form; the blanks might be so filled, he thought, as to import a thing -opposite to his wishes--they might import a discharge of the regular -troops already raised. He believed his colleague had no such desire; he -thought the measure would be improper; but he wished not to have a -regiment of officers without soldiers; he wished to fix a time at which -the recruiting service should cease and the supernumerary officers -should be discharged. As he intended to move that the proposition might -be so amended, he should consider it in that light, and he believed the -measure would not be imprudent nor inconsistent with the most vigorous -measures of defence or offence. - -It should be remembered that the House of Representatives, when they had -the bill before them, which last winter passed into a law, for defending -the frontiers, sent it to the Senate, with a clause importing that -officers below the rank of field-officers should not be put into -commission any faster than troops could be enlisted. The Senate, -adhering to their privilege, refused to agree to that clause in the -bill, and it became necessary immediately to commission the officers for -five thousand men, some of whom, if report speaks truth, not covetous of -honor, are content with their pay, without having raised three men. By -the proposed amendment the officers only would be dismissed, whom most -of us wished never to have seen in commission. - -The proposed regulation has been censured as implicating some kind of -censure on the Executive. He viewed it in a different light. The -Executive had done what was proper and necessary at the time. But if it -should appear that other measures would fit the change of circumstances, -he did not see why those measures should not be adopted. It should be -recollected that, during the last winter, when the estimate of five -thousand men as necessary for the defence of our frontiers was handed to -Congress, there was no militia law. A well-armed effective militia, that -palladium of liberty, had once and again been recommended by the -PRESIDENT to the attention of Congress; but Congress, from year to year, -as if they wished for a standing army, had neglected the militia. -Towards the close of the last session, indeed, they passed a law. He -hoped he might, without offence, call it the shadow of a law. It was -saying, in a few words, that the several States might have a good -militia if they pleased; and, if they pleased, they might have none at -all. Was the Executive to trust the defence of a country to a militia -formed under such a law? He thought not. But he observed that, since the -last winter, it had come to be generally known that a class of our -fellow-citizens exist on the frontiers who are at all times ready to -serve, not as drafted militia, but as volunteers. These are the men by -whom the Indians must be chastised, or we shall never have peace. They -are the best woodsmen and marksmen, and they have no professional -interest in spinning out the war. He must repeat the observation that -volunteers of the militia are the only troops for vigorous offensive -operations. Figure to yourselves an army of regulars creeping through -the wilderness, with all its cannon and other military apparatus, in -chase of a naked savage, who sees it without being seen. It is an -elephant in chase of a wolf. The troops already raised may be pretty -well disciplined before the season for action; they are sufficient, with -the co-operation of the militia, to take a post, and build forts where -they please; every thing else is beyond their power, if they were not -five but fifteen thousand. They will never see an Indian unless he -chooses to be seen. He wished to be indulged in a single observation -respecting a case in which it was said the other day, the militia had -been surprised. He was sorry that his naming Major Adair had produced -the remark. He would nevertheless venture to repeat the case as an -instance of vigilance and bravery. The Major, believing there was an -enemy at hand, had visited all his posts at midnight in person; his -Lieutenant, Madison, before the dawn of day, roused all the men, telling -them that the Indians were coming. The Major, wishing to leave the -ground before daylight, called in the sentinels; but the Indians, -rushing in with them, gave a heavy fire before there was light by which -they could be seen. The Major had not the merit, as he believed, of -having been a continental officer, but he had the merit, not less -honorable, of having served bravely in the militia. He questioned -whether any of the green troops to be recruited next spring or summer -will make so good a defence as Major Adair's militia had made. They had -taken scalp for scalp, though they fought against the odds of three to -one. He prayed it might be remembered that his ideas were not founded on -any hopes of sudden peace with the Indians; on the contrary, every -motion of the Indians, and every measure taken by those who had most -influence over the Indians, induced him to regard an Indian war as the -perpetual tax of at least one million per annum. It is fortunate, as he -conceived, that the United States know the source of their misfortunes; -and if they are compelled to spend one million per annum in opposing a -savage enemy, who seems to be hunted upon them, perhaps they may be -taught to indemnify themselves by refusing to expend several millions -which they can easily save. If a perpetual tax on this head must be -raised, sound policy will readily point to the proper object of -taxation; but this must remain over for our successors. In the mean -time, believing that the troops already raised are sufficient to -maintain every fort that is or may be erected, and being confident that -volunteers may be found at any time sufficient, if it shall be -necessary, to extirpate every hostile tribe of Indians, he should vote -for the proposition with the proposed amendment. - -The question being taken on Mr. W.'s amendment, viz: - - "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a - bill to reduce the military establishment of the United - States to ---- regiments, to consist of the men who are now - in service, or who may be recruited before the ---- day of - ---- next," &c.-- - -was negatived--32 to 24. The question then was on the original -resolution, as moved by Mr. STEELE; which, being put, it was -negatived--21 members only rising in favor of it. The committee then -rose, and the Chairman reported accordingly. The report was laid on the -table, and the House adjourned. - - -MONDAY, January 7. - -Mr. LIVERMORE, from the committee appointed, presented a bill to repeal -part of a resolution of Congress of the 29th of August, 1788, respecting -the inhabitants of Post Saint Vincents; which was received, read twice, -and committed. - -Mr. LAURANCE, from the committee to whom was recommitted the bill making -appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1793, reported -an amendatory bill; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee -of the whole House immediately. - -The House accordingly resolved itself into the said committee, and, -after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee -had had the said bill under consideration, and made no amendment -thereto. - -_Ordered_, That the said bill do lie on the table. - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the bill to regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions; and, after some -time spent therein, the committee rose, and reported progress. - - -TUESDAY, January 8. - -The House proceeded to the consideration of the bill making -appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1793, which -lay on the table; and the said bill being amended, was, together with -the amendments, ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time -to-morrow. - -A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed -a bill entitled "An act in addition to the act entitled 'An act to -establish the Judicial Courts of the United States;'" to which they -desire the concurrence of this House. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State, -accompanying a report of the assays and experiments made by the Director -of the Mint, on the gold and silver coins of France, England, Spain, and -Portugal, pursuant to the order of the 29th of November last; which were -read, and ordered to lie on the table. - -The bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act in addition to the act -entitled 'An act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United -States,'" was read twice, and committed. - -_Military Establishment._ - -The House proceeded to consider the motion of the 28th ultimo, for -reducing the Military Establishment of the United States, to which the -Committee of the whole House had reported their disagreement on Saturday -last. Whereupon, - -A motion was made and seconded to amend the same by striking out the -words "each of ---- non-commissioned officers, privates, and musicians," -and inserting, in lieu thereof, the words "of ---- non-commissioned -officers, musicians, and ---- of the privates who are now in service, or -may be recruited before the ---- day of ---- next." - -And the question being put thereupon, it passed in the negative--yeas -26, nays 32, as follows: - - YEAS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Clark, Elbridge Gerry, - William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, - Christopher Greenup, William Barry Grove, Richard Bland - Lee, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, - James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Nathaniel - Niles, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Jeremiah Smith, - John Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor - Tucker, Abraham Venable, Artemas Ward, and Hugh Williamson. - - NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell, - Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin - Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, William Findlay, Thomas - Fitzsimons, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, - James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes - Kittera, John Laurance, John Milledge, Frederick Augustus - Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, - Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, Israel Smith, William - Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, - Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander White, and Francis Willis. - -And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the -said motion, it passed in the negative--yeas 20, nays 36, as follows: - - YEAS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Clark, William B. Giles, - Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, Christopher Greenup, - William Barry Grove, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore, - Nathaniel Macon, John Francis Mercer, Nathaniel Niles, - Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Jeremiah Smith, John - Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, - and Artemas Ward. - - NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell, - Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin - Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, William Findlay, Thomas - Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, - James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes - Kittera, John Laurance, Richard Bland Lee, John Milledge, - Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans - Murray, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter - Sylvester, Israel Smith, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, - Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, - Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and - Francis Willis. - -_Ordered_, That the committee to whom was commiteed the letter and -representation from the Chief Justice and Associate Judges of the -Supreme Court of the United States, referred to in the PRESIDENT's -Message of the 7th of November last, be discharged from the further -consideration of the same. - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the bill to regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions; and, after some -time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee had again -had the said bill under consideration, and made several amendments -thereto; which were read, and partly considered. - - -FRIDAY, January 18. - -A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed -a bill, entitled "An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons -escaping from the service of their masters," in which they desire the -concurrence of this House. - - -MONDAY, January 21. - -The bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act respecting fugitives from -justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters," was -read twice, and committed. - - -MONDAY, February 4. - -_Fugitives from Justice and from Labor._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -bill sent from the Senate entitled, "An act respecting fugitives from -justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters;" and, -after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee -had had the said bill under consideration, and made an amendment -thereto; which was twice read, and agreed to by the House. - -_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendment, do lie on the table. - - -TUESDAY, February 5. - -_Fugitives from Justice and from Labor._ - -The House proceeded to consider the bill sent from the Senate entitled -"An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the -service of their masters," which lay on the table: Whereupon, the said -bill, together with the amendment agreed to yesterday, was read the -third time; and, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved -in the affirmative--yeas 48, nays 7, as follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, - Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub - Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Dayton, - Wm. Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas - Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Christopher - Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, - Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Daniel - Huger, Israel Jacobs, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, Amasa - Learned, Richard Bland Lee, George Leonard, Nathaniel - Macon, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William - Vans Murray, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Cornelius C. - Schoonmaker, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, Israel - Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas - Tudor Tucker, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander White, Hugh - Williamson, and Francis Willis. - - NAYS.--Samuel Livermore, John Francis Mercer, Nathaniel - Niles, Josiah Parker, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, - and Thomas Tredwell.[46] - -MONDAY, February 11. - -_Examining Votes for President, &c._ - -Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, from the committee appointed on the part of this -House jointly with a committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to -ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for PRESIDENT and -VICE PRESIDENT of the United States, and for other purposes expressed in -the resolution of the fifth instant, made a report; which was twice -read, and agreed to by the House, as follows: - - "That the two Houses shall assemble in the Senate Chamber - on Wednesday next, at twelve o'clock: that two persons be - appointed tellers on the part of this House, to make a list - of the votes as they shall be declared: that the result - shall be delivered to the PRESIDENT of the Senate, who - shall announce the state of the vote, and the persons - elected, to both Houses, assembled as aforesaid, which - shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected - PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT, and, together with a list of - the votes, be entered on the journal of the two Houses." - -_Ordered_, That Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr. LAURANCE be appointed tellers -on the part of this House, pursuant to the said report. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 13. - -_Votes for President and Vice President._ - -A message from the Senate informed the House that a PRESIDENT of the -Senate is elected for the sole purpose of opening the certificates, and -counting the votes of the several States, in the choice of a PRESIDENT -and VICE PRESIDENT of the United States; and that the Senate is now -ready, in the Senate Chamber, to attend, with this House, on that -occasion. - -_Resolved_, That the SPEAKER, attended by the House, do now withdraw to -the Senate Chamber, for the purpose expressed in the said message. - -The SPEAKER accordingly left the chair, and, attended by the House, -withdrew to the Senate Chamber, and, after some time, returned to the -House. - -The SPEAKER resumed the chair. - -Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr. LAURANCE then delivered in, at the Clerk's -table, a list of the votes of the Electors of the several States, in the -choice of a PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT of the United States, as the -same were declared by the PRESIDENT of the Senate, in the presence of -the Senate and of this House; which was ordered to be entered on the -journal, and is as follows: - - [The same as in the Senate proceedings.] - - -THURSDAY, February 28. - -_Official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury._ - -The resolutions brought forward yesterday by Mr. GILES, were called for -by that gentleman. The reading being finished, Mr. AMES moved that the -resolutions should be taken up. - -Mr. MURRAY suggested the necessity of giving a preference to the -Judiciary Bill reported by him some days since. He was seconded by Mr. -KEY. - -The motion for taking up the resolutions was carried, forty members -rising in favor of it. The resolutions were accordingly read by the -Clerk, and are as follow, viz: - - 1. _Resolved_, That it is essential to the due - administration of the Government of the United States, that - laws making specific appropriations of money should be - strictly observed by the administrator of the finances - thereof. - - 2. _Resolved_, That a violation of a law making - appropriations of money, is a violation of that section of - the Constitution of the United States which requires that - no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in - consequence of appropriations made by law. - - 3. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has - violated the law passed the 4th of August, 1790, making - appropriations of certain moneys authorized to be borrowed - by the same law, in the following particulars, viz: - _First_, By applying a certain portion of the principal - borrowed to the payment of interest falling due upon that - principal, which was not authorized by that or any other - law. _Secondly_, By drawing part of the same moneys into - the United States, without the instructions of the - President of the United States. - - 4. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has - deviated from the instructions given by the President of - the United States, in exceeding the authorities for making - loans under the acts of the 4th and 12th of August, 1790. - - 5. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has - omitted to discharge an essential duty of his office, in - failing to give Congress official information in due time, - of the moneys drawn by him from Europe into the United - States; which drawing commenced December, 1790, and - continued till January, 1793; and of the causes of making - such drafts. - - 6. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has - without the instructions of the President of the United - States, drawn more moneys borrowed in Holland into the - United States than the President of the United States was - authorized to draw, under the act of the 12th of August, - 1790: which act appropriated two millions of dollars only, - when borrowed, to the purchase of the Public Debt: And that - he has omitted to discharge an essential duty of his - office, in failing to give official information to the - Commissioners for purchasing the Public Debt, of the - various sums drawn from time to time, suggested by him to - have been intended for the purchase of the Public Debt. - - 7. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury did not - consult the public interest in negotiating a loan with the - Bank of the United States, and drawing therefrom four - hundred thousand dollars, at five per cent. per annum, when - a greater sum of public money was deposited in various - banks at the respective periods of making the respective - drafts. - - 8. _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has been - guilty of an indecorum to this House, in undertaking to - judge of its motives in calling for information which was - demandable of him, from the constitution of his office; and - in failing to give all the necessary information within his - knowledge, relatively to the subjects of the reference made - to him of the 19th January, 1792, and of the 22d November, - 1792, during the present session. - - 9. _Resolved_, That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be - transmitted to the President of the United States. - -Mr. GILES then moved that they should be referred to a Committee of the -whole House. - -Mr. W. SMITH was decidedly opposed to referring those resolutions to the -consideration of the Committee of the whole House, because he neither -viewed a discussion of them as necessary on the present occasion nor -warranted by the nature of the inquiry into the Secretary's conduct. It -was trifling with the precious time of the House to lavish it on -abstract propositions, when the object of the inquiry ought to be into -the facts. He was satisfied that should the House once involve itself in -an investigation of theoretic principles of government, the short -residue of the session would be exhausted, and no opportunity remain for -examining the charges themselves. Those charges being made, it became -the House, from a sense of duty to the public and justice to the -accused, to proceed immediately to consider them. If the mover intended -to apply the principles of the two first resolutions to the facts -contained in the subsequent ones, it was unquestionably proper first to -substantiate the facts, and then establish the principles which were -applicable to them; but it was surely a reversal of order to spend much -time in establishing principles, when it might happen that the charges -themselves would be totally unsupported. He did not like this mode of -proceeding, because it might tend to mislead the House; it was sometimes -a parliamentary practice to endeavor to lead the mind to vague and -uncertain results, by first laying down theorems from which no one could -dissent, and then proceeding by imperceptible shades to move unsettled -positions, in order ultimately to entrap the House in a vote which in -the first instance it would have rejected. This mode of conducting -public business, he considered as inconsistent with fair inquiry. The -question was, had the Secretary violated a law? If so, let it be shown; -every member was competent to decide so plain a question. He could -examine the proofs, read the law, and pronounce him guilty or innocent -without the aid of these preliminary metaphysical discussions. - -If it were urged that the propositions are so plain and obvious that no -time would be lost in considering them, he then begged leave to observe -that all antecedent discussions of constitutional questions had never -failed to occupy a large portion of their time, and that however -self-evident the resolutions might at the first glance appear, a more -critical attention would satisfy a mind not much given to doubt that -they were by no means so conclusive as to be free from objections. - -Though the position contained in the first resolution, as a general -rule, was not to be denied; yet it must be admitted, that there may be -cases of a sufficient urgency to justify a departure from it, and to -make it the duty of the Legislature to indemnify an officer; as if an -adherence would in particular cases and under particular circumstances, -prove ruinous to the public credit, or prevent the taking measures -essential to the public safety, against invasion or insurrection. In -cases of that nature, and which cannot be foreseen by the Legislature -nor guarded against, a discretionary authority must be deemed to reside -in the PRESIDENT, or some other Executive officer, to be exercised for -the public good; such exercise, instead of being construed into a crime, -would always meet the approbation of the National Legislature. If there -be any weight in these remarks, it does not then follow, as a general -rule, that it is essential to the due administration of the Government, -that laws making specific appropriations should in all cases whatsoever, -and under every public circumstance, be strictly observed. Before the -committee could come to a vote on such a proposition, it would be proper -to examine into the exceptions out of the rule, to state all the -circumstances which would warrant any departure from it, to whom the -exercise of the discretion should be intrusted, and to what extent. Did -any member wish at this period to attempt this inquiry? He supposed not. -Let every deviation from law be tested by its own merits or demerits. - -The second resolution was liable to stronger objections. It might with -propriety be questioned whether, as a general rule, the position was -well founded. A law making appropriations may be violated in various -particulars without infringing on the constitution, which only enjoins -that no moneys shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of -the appropriations made by law. This is only to say, that every -disbursement must be authorized by some appropriation. Where a sum of -money is paid out of the Treasury, the payment of which is authorized by -law, the constitution is not violated, yet there may have been a -violation of the law in some collateral particulars. There may even have -been a shifting of funds, and however exceptionable this may be on other -accounts, it would not amount to that species of offence which is -created by the constitution. The Comptroller of the Treasury must -countersign every warrant, and is responsible that it be authorized by a -legal appropriation; yet it cannot be supposed that he is to investigate -the source of the fund. - -One of the alleged infractions stated in the subsequent resolution, -namely, the drawing part of the loans into the United States without the -instructions of the PRESIDENT, evinces that the opposite construction is -not a sound one. For suppose the fact proved, and suppose it a violation -of the law, it certainly would be a very different thing from drawing -money out of the Treasury without an appropriation by law; for in this -case, there would be no drawing money from the Treasury at all, the -money never having been in the Treasury. - -Mr. S. then, said, he should also object to referring the last -resolution, which is in these words, - - "_Resolved_, That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be - transmitted to the PRESIDENT." - -The object of this resolution went clearly to direct the PRESIDENT to -remove the Secretary from office; the foregoing were to determine the -guilt, the last to inflict the punishment, and both the one and other -without the accused being heard in his defence. When the violation of -the constitution was so uppermost in our minds, it would be indeed -astonishing that we should be so hoodwinked as to commit such a palpable -violation of it in this instance. The principles of that constitution, -careful of the lives and liberties of the citizens, and what is dearer -to every man of honor, his reputation, secure to every individual in -every class of society, the precious advantage of being heard before he -is condemned. - -That constitution, peculiarly careful of the reputation of great public -functionaries, directs that when accused of a breach of duty, the -impeachment must be voted by a majority of the House of Representatives, -and tried by the Senate, who are to be on oath, and two-thirds of whom -must concur before a sentence can pass, by which the officer is to be -deemed guilty. The officer is to be furnished with a copy of the charge, -and is heard by himself or his counsel in vindication of his conduct. -Such are the solemnities and guards by which they are protected, and -which precede a sentence, the only effect of which is a removal from -office. But if the House proceed in the manner contemplated by this -resolution; if they first vote the charges, and send a copy of them to -the PRESIDENT, as an instruction to him to remove the officer, they will -violate the sacred and fundamental principles of this, and every free -Government. They will condemn a man unheard, nay, without his having -even been furnished with the charges against him; they will condemn to -infamy a high and responsible officer convicted by the Representatives -of the people, of a violation of the important trusts committed to him, -without affording him one opportunity of vindicating his character and -justifying his conduct. - -Mr. MURRAY said he was opposed to the reference of the resolutions to -the Committee of the Whole. He had, as far as the time permitted, -examined the several reports on which the examination depended, and was -then ready to vote on them, though he confessed, from the intricacy -which was inherent in such a subject, as well as from the vast variety -of the detail involved, he had not had sufficient time for a complete -investigation. Nor did he imagine that any man who had not previously -meditated on the subject for a length of time, and made choice of his -ground of attack, could say he was completely master of the subject. -Some vote, however, was now rendered essential to the character, not -only of Government, but of the gentleman who presided over the finances -of the country. But three days were left for this inquiry, and to finish -a great deal of other business; and he thought that despatch which was -usual in the House ought to be used in preference to the indulgence -which a committee afforded. As to the abstract propositions, if it were -necessary now to go into them, he thought it would be proper to decide -on them first. He thought it most logical to lay down principles of -reasoning before facts were developed. Were they agreed to by the House, -it would be under provisions and restrictions. They could not have the -implicit force of axioms, but at most must be yielded to as wholesome -maxims, the application of which must be frequently modified by a -certain degree of discretion. With respect to all the other resolutions, -he imagined they would, on examination, be found to be unwarranted by -facts. He hoped the movers and supporters of the resolutions would not -be gratified at so late a season by the House in resolving itself into a -Committee of the Whole. The mode in which they were brought forward did -not entitle them to much confidence. He said, a more unhandsome -proceeding he had never seen in Congress. It had been a practice, -derived from the lights of common liberty, common right, and the first -principles of justice, that whoever was charged with a violation of law -on which a punishment ensued, should have some mode of answering to the -charge. It had, in a recent instance, been the practice of Congress, -when an officer's conduct was even in the first instance inquired into, -to afford the officer an opportunity of attending upon the examination -on which his offence or his freedom from blame was to appear. He alluded -to the conduct of the House when an examination took place relatively to -the failure of General St. Clair's expedition. Suspicions were -entertained that blame lay somewhere. A committee was appointed to -examine. The three officers particularly concerned were, he understood, -invited, as it were, to come before the committee, to explain, to -interrogate, and to give information. Though the Secretary of War was -not permitted to explain on this floor, justice and delicacy, and the -most common principles of jurisprudence, to which we attempted to hold -some analogy, demanded that he should be heard somewhere, and the -committee was renewed for this purpose. The Quartermaster General asked -to be heard on this floor. Though refused, he was permitted to attend -that committee on whose examination his character as a Quartermaster -depended. Were any man responsible as an officer to this House to fall -under the suspicion of its members, a regard to decency and to the -established rights of citizenship, would teach gentlemen to inquire -formally before they hastily laid a charge on the table, to which they -might move the assent of the House. But in this proceeding a Legislative -charge was gone into before inquiry had been instituted. Every rule of -justice, and all that delicacy which ought ever to attend her progress, -had been disregarded, and in the very first instance, a number of -charges are brought forward, not for inquiry, but conviction, which, if -sanctioned by a majority of the House, are to be followed by the -dismission of one of the highest officers in the Government. This mode -was as tyrannical as it was new, and if any thing could throw a bias -against the resolutions, independent of inquiry, it was the partial and -unjust form in which the proceeding had commenced. Resolutions of -conviction might rise out of the report of a committee of inquiry, who -would act as a Grand Jury to the House, but could never precede it. He -hoped the House would not refer to a Committee of the Whole what might -be decided in the House with more despatch. - -Mr. PAGE in reply to Mr. SMITH, spoke, in substance, as follows: - -Mr. Chairman: The more precious our time, the more readily shall I vote -for a consideration of the first resolution; for I think it of more -consequence that we should decide on it, than on any other before us. We -find, from the inquiry which has been set on foot into the conduct of -the Secretary of the Treasury, that he differs from the mover of the -resolution in opinion respecting his powers, and the constitutional -obligation he may be under of regarding acts of appropriation; it -therefore must be the wish of the Secretary himself, whether we agree -with him or not; and it is our duty, as soon as possible, I conceive, -to let our constituents know whether we approve, or not, of his opinion. -The Secretary himself, I think, confesses "that a strict adherence to -appropriations, in certain cases, would be pusillanimity." He preferred, -no doubt, the public good, which he thought he had in view, to a strict -compliance with an act of appropriation. It becomes us, then, to -determine whether we wish that the Secretary shall hereafter be bound by -our acts of appropriation or not. - -I cannot conceive that the rejection of the first resolution can alter -the nature of the case before us, or in any manner confirm or invalidate -the truth of facts which some gentlemen seem so apprehensive may lead to -an impeachment. For my part, I keep in view the first resolution, -without thinking a moment of the last, or the intermediate propositions. -When they shall come under consideration, I shall be ready to show a -proper attention to them. How the first resolution can be called an -abstract proposition, I know not, when the nature of the last before us -requires a decision on it. The Secretary himself should desire it, and -our constituents must expect it. If the Committee of the Whole shall be -of opinion that appropriations ought to be sacredly regarded, they will -agree to the resolution; if they think they may be dispensed with "in -certain cases," they may amend the resolution, and qualify it so as to -justify the conduct of the Secretary. To call the resolution a preamble, -and to object to it as such, appears to me as extraordinary as to call -it an abstract proposition; for I have always thought it inconsistent -with Republican principles to object to preambles. I have remarked, sir, -when they have been objected to, it became the Representatives of a free -people to show on what principles and with what views their laws are -enacted, and, not in a dictatorial manner enact that it shall be so and -so. The framers of our constitution have set us an example of an -excellent preamble; and, as it has been remarked by several members, -this House has occasionally used them; I think, therefore, that none of -the objections to the commitment of the first resolution are of -sufficient weight to induce the House to agree to the motion for -striking out the two first resolutions. - -The question was now taken on committing the first two resolutions, and -negatived--25 to 32. On the question of referring the last, only -fourteen members voted in the affirmative. - -_Ordered_, That the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth -resolutions contained in the said motion be committed to a Committee of -the whole House immediately. - -The House accordingly resolved itself into the said committee; and, -after some time spent therein, the committee rose, and had leave to sit -again. - - -FRIDAY, March 1. - -_Official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth resolutions -contained in the motion of yesterday, respecting the official conduct of -the Secretary of the Treasury. - -The third resolution being under consideration, in the words following, -viz: - - "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has - violated the law, passed the fourth of August, one thousand - seven hundred and ninety, making appropriations of certain - moneys authorized to be borrowed by the same law, in the - following particulars, to wit: - - "1. By applying a certain portion of the principal borrowed - to the payment of the interest falling due upon that - principal, which was not authorized by that or any other - law. - - "2. By drawing part of the same moneys into the United - States without the instructions of the President of the - United States." - -Mr. BARNWELL.--Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to discuss the -observations which yesterday fell from the gentleman who introduced the -resolutions now before us, I cannot refrain from saying that I am -extremely happy that, in passing through the medium of that gentleman's -examination, this subject has changed its hue from the foul stain of -peculation to the milder coloring of an illegal exercise of discretion, -and a want of politeness in the Secretary of the Treasury. I feel happy, -because I always am so when any man charged with guilt can acquit -himself; and the more so now, when a man in a high responsible office, -and high in the estimation of his countrymen, can reduce a charge from a -quality calculated to have excited an alarm, even in Pandemonium, to -such a shape as I fancy will scarce serve to satisfy the uncommon -curiosity which it appears to have excited. As I have never been in the -habit of taking notes, I shall depend upon memory in answering the -gentleman from Virginia; although I imagine, as that gentleman usually -sticks very close to his point, whatever it may be, that, in pursuing -his charges, I shall substantially answer his arguments. In commenting -upon the two first resolutions, to which I am by order confined, I shall -consider, in the first instance, what regards the right of drawing money -into this country. The gentleman appears not to have considered the law -properly, for there cannot be a doubt that the PRESIDENT had a right to -make what arrangements he pleased, in order to attain what he might -consider a proper modification of the debt due by the United States -abroad. He might have borrowed the money here, or have paid it here; he -might have borrowed the money in England, or wherever he thought fit. I -will ask the gentleman by what precise authority he borrowed the money -in Amsterdam and Antwerp, and paid it in Paris? Certainly by none but -that discretion which has been depended upon to modify the debt in the -manner most conducive to the interest of the United States. I take it, -then, for granted, Mr. Chairman, that the right of the PRESIDENT to draw -the money borrowed here, or to send it any where, must be conceded. The -question will then arise, whether the Secretary of the Treasury had a -right to do this or not, and whether this has not been done without, -nay, against the instructions of the PRESIDENT? I really consider this -as one of the most extraordinary cases that I have ever known exhibited. -Let us consider its form. A highly important trust, of no less import -than the discretionary use of fourteen millions of dollars, is placed in -the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; he, by a general commission, and by -special instruction, deputes this power to the Secretary of the -Treasury, stating that he is to conform to these and whatever -instructions he might from time to time give him. Let any man seriously -examine these powers, and I am of opinion that the Secretary, under -these, had a right to draw, if he thought proper, unless instructed to -the contrary; for the PRESIDENT conveys a complete power to modify the -debt, provided that it should be, with all convenient despatch, applied -to pay the principal and interest due to France; for where the payments -are to be made is certainly left to the Secretary. If this has not been -exercised advantageously, this is another circumstance which the -gentleman himself has not questioned. But, says the gentleman, the -Secretary, under these instructions, had no special authority to draw; -notwithstanding which, he began to draw in 1790, and has continued to -draw, at different times, into this country the enormous sum of three -millions of dollars, and therefore he must have done this without, nay, -against the instructions of the PRESIDENT, who, it is presumed, having -delegated this great trust, has never, for three years, inquired into -the performance of it. Can this be the inference of common sense? Can -this be the inference of the experience which we have had of the -PRESIDENT, one of the prominent features of whose character always has -been an industry to investigate particulars, as remarkable as his -sagacity to frame generals? If, then, instructions have not been given, -or have been exceeded, was it necessary for us to come in aid of the -PRESIDENT, he who by our law has the power, which we ourselves cannot -exercise, of removing any of the Executive officers at pleasure? It -certainly cannot be necessary; for, as this officer continues to act, we -must conclude that he has either acted by instructions, or in such -manner as to have given satisfaction to his principal without them. -Really, Mr. Chairman, I cannot but believe that if suspicion had not led -the gentleman from Virginia astray, the usual correctness of his -understanding would have prevented him from pursuing such an _ignis -fatuus_ as this. - -Mr. W. SMITH regretted that so important an inquiry had been instituted -at the very close of the session, when the members were thronged with -business of an indispensable nature, and it was scarcely possible for -them to bestow that attention and deliberation which the nature of the -subject called for. But, while he expressed this regret, he assured the -committee that it was mingled with much satisfaction, in finding that -the vague charges of mismanagement, with which the public had long been -alarmed, were at length cast into a shape susceptible of investigation -and decision. Previous to an examination of the specific charge then -under consideration, he claimed the indulgence of the committee in -offering a few preliminary remarks, which, though they did not bear -precisely upon the charge itself, yet were intimately connected with the -subject-matter of the inquiry, and were justified by the general remarks -of gentlemen who had preceded him. - -In recurring back to the origin and progress of this examination, it -must appear somewhat surprising that that which, in the commencement of -the session, was sounded forth as gross peculation, now turned out to be -nothing more than a mere substitution of funds, and that that which was -announced as abominable corruption, was dwindled away into a mere -drawing of money from Europe into this country, to be applied here -according to law. - -Whatever credit might be due to the motives which had originated this -inquiry, every member would concur in the sentiment, that in a -government constituted like that of the United States, which had nothing -but the public confidence for its basis, premature alarms and groundless -suspicions respecting the conduct of public officers were pregnant with -the most injurious consequences. This opinion was more peculiarly -applicable to the important station of Secretary of the Treasury. -Intrusted with the management of a large revenue, and necessarily -clothed with some latitude of discretion, it was to be expected that he -would excite the jealousy of the public vigilance; but as long as he -kept in view the injunctions of law, and the public good, his reputation -was entitled to that security which is due to every citizen. - -An officer, intrusted with the care and distribution of public moneys, -is generally looked at with a watchful eye; mankind are too prone to -suspect the purity of his conduct; slight insinuations are but too often -sufficient to injure him in the public estimation. Such being the -natural propensity of things, it doubtless behoved those who wished for -tranquillity in the country to withhold charges not clearly warranted by -proof--to suspend animadversions which were not likely to terminate in -conviction. A contrary proceeding had an inevitable tendency -unnecessarily to alarm the public mind, to instil into it suspicions -against the integrity of men in high stations, to weaken their public -confidence in the Government, and to enervate its operations. - -There was something remarkable in the nature of the present allegations -against the Secretary. Taking them all into view, they presented -nothing which involved self-interested, pecuniary considerations; and in -this, they essentially differed from accusations against financiers in -other countries, to whom motives of interest were generally ascribed as -the source of their peculations. To the Secretary, no such motive was -imputed; notwithstanding former insinuations against his integrity, the -sum of all the charges now amounted to nothing more than arrogance, or -an assumption of power, or an exercise of unauthorized discretion. - -Mr. S. proceeded next to examine the charge under consideration. It -consisted of two items: the first, the application of a certain portion -of the principal sum borrowed in Europe to the payment of interest -falling due upon that principal, which it was contended was not -authorized by any law; the second, the drawing part of the same moneys -into the United States, without the instructions of the PRESIDENT. - -The first item of this supposed violation of law appeared of so -frivolous a nature that it did not merit much discussion; at any rate, -it was more an objection of form than of substance. If he comprehended -well the purport of the charge, it was nothing more than this--that the -Secretary having moneys at his disposal in Europe applicable to the -purchase of stock in this country, and having at the same time moneys in -this country applicable to the payment of the interest abroad, had -substituted the one for the other. He had paid the foreign interest out -of the foreign funds, and he had purchased stock with the domestic -funds. This was the heinous offence with which he was charged, and which -was thought sufficient to remove him from office. If the moneys in -Europe might have been drawn to this country by bills, for the purchase -of the debt, it might have equally been drawn here, by ordering the -application of a sum in Europe, for a purpose which would be represented -by an equal sum here, to be applied to the purchase. The substance, not -the form, is to decide whether this mode of negotiating the matter was -proper. Suppose bills had been ordered to be drawn on the commissioners, -and remitted to them on account of the foreign interest, would not this -have been as regular as to draw them for sale? Did the execution of the -law require that the Secretary, having funds in Europe with which the -foreign interest might be discharged, should nevertheless remit moneys -abroad for that purpose, and then, having funds in this country with -which the purchases of the debt might be made, should draw bills to -bring the foreign funds here? Was there any necessity for this complex -operation, for the expense of remittance, the probable loss on the sale -of bills, the loss of interest while the money was _in transitu_, when -the whole matter could be negotiated by the simple and economical mode -pursued? So far from this arrangement being a ground of censure, Mr. S. -asserted that, had the Secretary pursued the other mode, he would have -been animadverted upon with great severity for such an extraordinary -course. He would have been accused of ignorance of his duty, and every -loss incidental to the transaction would have been charged to his -account. - -The second division of the charge, being of more magnitude, required a -more lengthy discussion. This instance of violation consisted in a -supposed deviation from the instructions of the PRESIDENT, or a supposed -acting without any instruction whatever. It was, however, begging the -question; it was taking for granted that which did not appear, and which -ought not to be presumed. And here, Mr. S. observed, the gentlemen on -the other side had entirely reversed one of the fundamental maxims of -criminal jurisprudence, which declared that innocence should be presumed -and guilt proved; whereas they had presumed guilt, and called upon the -accused to prove his innocence. - -And what was the slender basis on which the presumption was built? Why, -say the gentlemen, the instructions from the PRESIDENT to the Secretary, -which have been laid before the House, relate only to the payment of the -French debt, and convey no authority to draw any of the foreign loan -into this country for the purchase of stock; and hence they infer, he -had no authority for this latter purpose. - -To comprehend the fallacy of the inference, it was only necessary to -recur to the laws, and to the PRESIDENT's commission to the Secretary to -negotiate the loans. Two acts of Congress had passed; one on the 4th of -August, the other on the 12th of August, 1790. The first authorized a -loan of twelve millions of dollars, applicable to the payment of the -French debt; the other, a loan of two millions, applicable to the -purchase of the domestic debt. The PRESIDENT's commission to the -Secretary embraced both acts and both objects, and under that commission -one loan was negotiated applicable to both objects. True it is, that the -PRESIDENT's first instructions were confined to one object, namely, the -French debt; but the inference is not that no other instructions were -given, and that the Secretary acted without authority; but the very -reverse, that the PRESIDENT either left the other object to the general -discretion of the Secretary, who was, _ex officio_, the proper agent and -his representative; or that he reserved it for subsequent and occasional -instructions. - -This inference must be the true one; first, because a contrary -supposition would impute to the PRESIDENT an illegal intention, that of -applying all the moneys borrowed under both acts to the object of one -only; secondly, because the commission extending to the borrowing -fourteen millions of dollars, and embracing both objects, and the -instructions being confined to twelve millions of dollars, and to only -one object, it followed that the other either was left to discretionary -management, or to after regulation, for the law enjoined the execution -of both. - -If presumption, then, was to govern, the more natural presumption was, -that the officer acted according to some general discretion reposed in -him, or according to instructions from time to time given. These -instructions may have been verbal, as well as written. The written -instructions given in the first instance were evidently confined to the -object of the first act. The necessary conclusion is, that the -application of the moneys borrowed under the second act was not meant to -be included in that instruction, but was left to be regulated by a -general discretion, or by occasional directions, verbal or otherwise. - -Having gone through this resolution, Mr. S. observed, that, if there was -as little of criminality in the subsequent charges as in that which he -had just discussed--and from an attentive examination he sincerely -believed it--he was satisfied that, notwithstanding all the severe -animadversions within, and all the virulent calumny without, the walls -of Congress, the conduct of the Secretary would come forth chaste and -unblemished. Instead of any thing being detected which would disgrace -Pandemonium, nothing could be chargeable to him which would sully the -purest angel in heaven. Whatever difference of opinion might exist as to -the wisdom and benefit of his measures, he was confident in saying, that -in every thing the Secretary had done, he had been guided by principles -honorable and patriotic, and he trusted that a very great majority of -the committee would, by their votes, evince the same sentiment. The -sword of justice, it was said, ought at times to be taken from its -scabbard to keep great public functionaries within the pale of the law; -but it should be remembered that if Justice had its sword to punish the -guilty, it had likewise its shield to protect the innocent. If the -Secretary had committed a wanton violation of law, let the sword be -drawn forth for his punishment; but if he has pursued the dictates of an -enlightened patriotism, the committee were called upon to raise the -shield for the defence of a faithful officer. - -Mr. FINDLAY addressed the Chair as follows: - -Mr. Chairman: Being strongly impressed with the importance of our time, -which is now so near an end, though I had the honor of seconding the -resolutions, I took no part in the debates of yesterday; nor will I now -detain you with replies to many of the arguments which have been offered -against the resolution now under discussion. - -Upon one argument frequently introduced by the gentleman last up, viz: -the greatness of the Secretary's character, &c., I will only make a -single remark. There is no character officially known in Executive -departments of this Government, who merits pre-eminence, or to whom a -degree of greatness can be ascribed, but in proportion to his prompt -execution of the laws, and the attention with which he discharges the -duties of his office. From this rule, the PRESIDENT himself is not -exempt, much less a subordinate Secretary, whose appointment is during -pleasure, and the duties assigned him of a changeable and temporary -nature. But to come to the resolution before us. The first questions -that offer themselves, are: Was the money in question appropriated to -special and distinct purposes? Did the Secretary of the Treasury apply -the money to other uses than the law directed? - -In answer to the first, it is only necessary to advert to the law -authorizing the loans. The law authorizing the twelve million loan, -appropriates whatever amount may be borrowed solely to the payment of -debts then due to France and Holland. The law authorizing the two -million loan directs the application thereof to the redemption of the -domestic debt, in aid of about ---- dollars, arising from the revenues -previous to the 1st of January, ----. These appropriations are precise, -distinct, and unconditional. With respect to the uses, no room was left -for the exercise of discretion. The will of the Legislature was express -and clearly defined; it left no room for evasion, nor any excuse for -mistake; nor did the PRESIDENT transfer to the Secretary any other -authority or instructions than what the law expressed. - -But the gentleman from South Carolina says, that the presumption is, -that the PRESIDENT did give other instructions than he has communicated; -that, in this case, presumption should be admitted as conclusive -testimony, and that neither the Secretary nor the PRESIDENT is obliged -to communicate the instructions or authority to us. The gentleman is a -lawyer: I will appeal to himself; I will appeal to all the professional -members on the floor, whether presumptions can be admitted as proof, -where, in the nature of the case, positive testimony can be procured. -Surely, in courts of justice, positive testimony is always required, and -presumptive is rarely admitted; but in this case, the presumptive is by -the gentleman set in opposition to the positive. However, this is not -the case in fact. The PRESIDENT did give commission and instructions, -and those are fully communicated to us. If he conceived we had no right -to demand them, he would have told us so; if he had kept any part of -them back, he would have informed us, and assigned his reasons for doing -so. I presume that the PRESIDENT has acted the part of a candid, honest -man; the gentleman presumes the reverse. The suggestion that this House, -which has the exclusive right of originating the appropriation of money, -has no right to be informed of the application of it, is so novel and -extraordinary, so inconsistent with every idea of propriety and good -government, that it requires no reply. - -Did the Secretary apply the money borrowed in Europe agreeably to the -legal appropriations and the instructions of the PRESIDENT? No, he did -not; though some of the gentlemen do not acknowledge this, yet the -Secretary has clearly acknowledged it himself, and has filled his -reports with labored and ingenious apologies for so doing. He has -suggested a variety of motives, and taken infinite pains to charm us -with the mighty public advantages resulting from his doing so. He -acknowledges combining the loans, and directing the application of them, -in the very offset, in a way contrary to law; he acknowledges having -drawn to this country, and applied in Europe, to uses for which other -moneys were appropriated, near $3,000,000. Out of this he has paid -upwards of $400,000 of the French debt, to St. Domingo. I do not -complain of paying the interest due in Europe out of the money drawn -here. The gentlemen apply the force of their arguments, with great -attention, to support or apologize for this part of the Secretary's -conduct, as if against this only the charge in the resolution lay. But -we do not object to applying that money in Holland, which ought to have -been brought here, if the money which, according to the appropriation, -should have gone to Holland, had been put to the use here for which the -other was intended. A simple exchange of money for the purposes of -conveniency or economy, is properly one of those cases to which -ministerial discretion may safely be extended; but the question before -us is, the money has not been replaced. The amount of money has not been -applied to the uses intended; consequently, the appropriation has been -disregarded. It is acknowledged that though there were upwards of -$1,300,000 of the Domestic Sinking Fund, and upwards of $2,300,000 drawn -from Europe, besides the moneys applied to the relief of St. Domingo; -yet, when these inquiries began, there was not $1,000,000 applied to the -redemption of the public debt, and even yet the whole of the domestic -appropriation has not been applied to the Sinking Fund, notwithstanding -that the public debt is now, and has for some time been under par. We -have it on record that the Secretary never informed the commissioners of -the drafts he made on Europe, although the fund was exclusively to be at -their disposal. - -Mr. GILES rose.--He was sensible that he stood in a peculiarly delicate -situation, in which nothing short of the public good could have induced -him to place himself. If a public and highly responsible officer had -violated the laws, it was necessary that he should be called to an -account for it; and to determine whether in the instances before the -House, he had been guilty of that violation, it is necessary to compare -the testimony with the facts alleged in the resolutions before the -committee. He first adverted to the law authorizing the PRESIDENT OF THE -UNITED STATES to borrow twelve millions of dollars for the purpose of -paying the foreign debt. On this, he remarked that the authority of -borrowing was expressly given to the PRESIDENT, no doubt, with an eye to -the personal virtues of the character who fills that office; the loan is -also directed to be made solely for the purpose of paying the public -debt. Here he remarked, that in every appropriation law, the -appropriation is always emphatically mentioned, which is an evidence -that the Legislature intend to remain the sole judges of the -applications of money. He read a letter from the Secretary of the -Treasury, who was employed by the PRESIDENT to negotiate this loan, to -Mr. Short, the Secretary's foreign agent for this purpose, dated the 9th -of May, 1791, in which the Secretary informs Mr. Short, that one million -and a half of the money he had obtained on loan, was destined for -France; of which sum he was authorized to apply immediately one million, -but to reserve eight hundred thousand florins to answer such subsequent -directions as he should receive from the PRESIDENT. He cited this -passage to show that the million and a half which had been obtained on -loan, was destined for France. - -To remove any doubt that might remain upon this head, he referred to a -preceding letter from the Secretary to Mr. Short, dated the 13th of -April, in which it is also expressly said, that of the two millions -borrowed, one million and a half is intended for France, the remaining -half million to wait for further directions. Having established this -point, he adverted to the resolution before the committee, which says, -that he applied a portion of the principal borrowed to the payment of -the interest falling due upon that principal, without being authorized -so to do by any law. To show this, he referred to a report of the 3d of -January, containing sundry statements respecting foreign loans. That -part of the report to which he alluded in proof of the fact, stated in -general terms, a sum paid on account of foreign loans, and this sum was -taken from the principal borrowed, and amounted to 1,833,189 florins. If -his statement was accurate, the fact he wished to establish was proved. -He wanted more light, he confessed, than he could collect from the -Secretary's official communications. He should not go into the -examination of what circumstances might have induced the Secretary to -deviate from the positive injunctions of the law, or to make any remarks -upon his conduct, until he had heard what gentlemen would say to -controvert the fact he wished to establish. - -Another fact of consequence he wished to prove, viz: that part of the -money obtained on loan in Europe had been drawn over, though not wanted -here for any public purpose. This appeared from other papers. He turned -to the instructions from the PRESIDENT to the Secretary of the Treasury, -authorizing him to borrow $14,000,000, in which the Secretary is -cautioned to keep in view the two several acts authorizing the loans, -and the distinct conditions they contemplate. By the instructions of the -PRESIDENT, the Secretary is authorized to apply the moneys. In the -execution of the trust confided to him, the PRESIDENT generally directs -him to employ Mr. Short to negotiate the loans, to borrow in the manner -prescribed by the acts, and to discharge immediately the arrears of -interest due to the French, to which purpose and to the complete payment -of that debt the twelve million loan was altogether appropriated. If -this money, then, was shown to have been drawn here, it was neither -warranted by law nor by the PRESIDENT's instructions. The Secretary did -begin to draw as early as 1790, and had continued to draw from time to -time, till 1793, without giving notice of this to the Legislature. -Having shown that the Secretary had drawn without authority to draw, he -next proceeded to consider the purpose of those drafts. - -The money thus drawn for was not, he stated, applied to the purchase of -the public debt. No money obtained from foreign loans was thus applied -until this year; the domestic resources appropriated to this object were -never exhausted. These were the facts involved in the first resolution, -which he wished to establish. Before he proceeded further into the -discussion, he wished to hear what gentlemen had to say to controvert -them. He wished to see justice done in the matter before the House; he -wished justice, also, to be tempered with moderation and mercy; and if -gentlemen could show the necessity for deviations from positive law, -which he had endeavored to point out, it would exonerate the Secretary -from a very great share of blame. - -Mr. BARNWELL called for the reading of certain parts of the two acts -authorizing the loans. One of the 4th of August, authorizes a loan of -$12,000,000, to be obtained without limitation as to the interest, for -the purpose of paying the foreign debt; the other is of the 12th of -August, for $2,000,000, the interest to be not more than five per cent., -and for the purpose of reducing the domestic debt. - -Mr. SEDGWICK, to disprove that the drafts alluded to have been made -without the knowledge of the Legislature, called for the reading of the -PRESIDENT's Speech to both Houses on the 8th of December, 1790, and a -subsequent report of the Secretary of the Treasury to the same point. By -this, it appeared that the power of borrowing, having been exercised -under the joint authority of the two acts, the Secretary states a -difficulty that had occurred to him on the subject of the drafts alluded -to. The money having been obtained on an interest of five per cent., -exclusive of douceurs, he wished the Legislature to determine whether it -might strictly be considered as borrowed under the second act, which -limited the interest at five per cent. This was sufficient, he -conceived, to show that the Legislature were not ignorant of those -drafts, and an act was passed solving the Secretary's doubt, and -sanctioning his construction of the law. - -Mr. GILES remarked that he had drawn before that sanction was obtained. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS observed, on the first charge in the resolution, that, as -the interest of the money borrowed in Europe is payable where borrowed, -it was economical in the Secretary to pay that interest with moneys -there, which were to be drawn here, and replace the sum by taking the -amount from the funds here destined for that payment. A financial -operation of this nature is simple, and saves the trouble of drawing -with one hand and remitting with the other. He conceived there was no -just foundation for the first charge. - -Mr. LAURANCE said, that when the resolutions calling for information -from the Treasury Department were first brought forward, the public mind -was impressed with an idea that there were moneys unaccounted for. This -charge is now dropped, and it is honorable to the officer concerned -that, after much probing, nothing is found to support it. The inquiry -now is, whether a debt was paid out of this or that fund. He did not -admit the fact, that it was paid out of any other moneys than what law -strictly warranted. He went into a history of the subject from its -origin. He stated the nature and purposes of the loans. There was -nothing to prevent the PRESIDENT from consolidating the two loans, -provided such an arrangement did not interfere with the purposes -intended by them. The PRESIDENT employed the Secretary to obtain the -loans under the joint authority of both acts, as it was found that the -object could best be carried into effect by such an arrangement. The -money thus borrowed became subject to the appropriations of both acts, -and not exclusively for the payment of the foreign debt. Then, as part -of that money was subject to be drawn here for the redemption of the -domestic debt, and the interest of the loan was to be paid with domestic -funds, it was perfectly reasonable to avoid further drafts and -remittances to pay the debt there with money there, and replace it here -with money already here. The fact stated in the first part of the -resolution is, by this plain statement of the case, substantially -refuted, and appears altogether unfounded; but if the fact is proved, -what is implied? No injury to the interests of the community; the -intention of the Legislature has been in every point fulfilled. If the -Secretary had acted differently, he would have been guilty of an -absurdity, and to blame for sacrificing the public interest and -neglecting the spirit of a law for a strict and unprofitable observance -of its letter. - -Mr. SEDGWICK, by adverting to the Speech of the PRESIDENT and Report of -the Secretary, had shown that the Legislature had been made acquainted -with the drafts, and sanctioned future ones on the same principles. The -latter part of the first resolution criminates the Secretary for making -them without instructions from the PRESIDENT. Even if this was the case, -he did not know whether this was really reprehensible. He defended it on -the ground, that the Secretary is the officer appointed by law to -superintend the finances and apply all moneys agreeably to -appropriations. He took a view of the subject, as stated by Mr. -LAURANCE, and concluded by asking, whether, if the Secretary was found, -on a critical examination, to have deviated in a trifle from the letter -of the law, such a deviation was sufficient to warrant the alarm's being -sounded from St. Croix to St. Mary's, and whether the precious time of -the House, at the close of the session with a vast variety of business -on their hands, should be taken up in so unprofitable and frivolous an -investigation? - -Mr. GILES said, the transaction alluded to by the gentleman to -controvert the fact laid down in the first part of the resolution before -the committee was not immaterial, as they had endeavored to show it. It -was not merely a financial operation to avoid the necessity of drawing -and remitting. The truth was, that the Secretary had drawn over nearly -$3,000,000. The PRESIDENT's authority was limited to $2,000,000. - -Mr. LAURANCE was of opinion, that if the PRESIDENT, or his agent, had -drawn the whole amount of the money obtained under both loans, he could -not be said to have gone beyond his authority. He was authorized to -borrow $12,000,000 to pay the arrears on the foreign debt, and to modify -the whole. In the execution of this trust, he might have found it -advisable to draw to the country the whole of that sum. It had been -found advisable to draw for part, and to pay the French by shipping -produce to St. Domingo. If the money expended for supplies to St. -Domingo is deducted, the balance will be found less than $2,000,000. - -Mr. L. contended, that the interest of the moneys borrowed was not paid -out of the principal of the loan, as set forth in the first charge of -the resolution before the committee. If gentlemen would attend to the -history of the transaction, they would find this strictly true. This -interest was paid out of the moneys borrowed for the reduction of the -public debt, and not out of those intended to pay the French, and the -funds appropriated for the payment of that interest were here to replace -the former and be applied as those were appropriated. He referred to the -PRESIDENT's Speeches at the commencement of the two last sessions, to -show that the loan was obtained under the joint authority of both acts; -and adverted to the act of Congress, in consequence of a doubt suggested -by the Secretary, explaining that the moneys first obtained might be -considered as borrowed under the act authorizing the two million loan. -Having shown the first charge in the resolution to be unfounded, he -turned to the second. - -The Secretary is accused of drawing moneys to this country without -instructions. In this transaction the PRESIDENT must be considered as -the principal, and the Secretary the agent, or the Secretary must be -looked upon as the principal. If the PRESIDENT is the principal, and he -be authorized to obtain the loans, as soon as the money is obtained it -naturally falls under the direction of the financier; but if it be -contended that the PRESIDENT was to have applied the moneys as well as -to borrow them, then we have nothing to do with the agent; that agent is -accountable to his principal, and as this principal is not called to an -account by the Legislature for any improper exercise of discretion, he -must be considered as having acted strictly within the law. If the -Secretary is considered as the principal, (and by a strict attention to -the law, he believed, it would be found so, for the PRESIDENT is by it -authorized to borrow, and it is not expressed who shall apply the -money,) then it was not one of the duties of the Secretary to procure -the instructions of the PRESIDENT; being the principal, and consequently -having the direction of the money borrowed, he is made the judge of the -time of drawing, to fulfil the intention of the law. Was the money, he -asked, to have remained in the hands of the banker in Europe? Since it -was borrowed for the purchase of the public debt, the sooner it was -drawn over the better, and the Secretary having the direction of those -moneys, could do it without consulting the PRESIDENT. He proceeded to -show, however, that the Secretary had by no means acted entirely without -regard to the PRESIDENT's instructions. His letter to Mr. Short, which -had been read, expressly says, that he is waiting for instructions from -the PRESIDENT, and the only instructions brought forward clearly show, -that he did not act without them. On this occasion it was not necessary, -he conceived, that all the private communications between these two -officers should be brought forward; indeed, many of the instructions -might have been verbal, and of a private nature. Another proof lies -before the committee, to show that the Secretary did not act independent -of instructions. A report of the Secretary mentions that some matters -relative to the loans were under consideration of the PRESIDENT OF THE -UNITED STATES. This document, the gentlemen were in possession of when -they framed the resolutions; and it, in his opinion, left very little -ground indeed to suppose that the Secretary had acted without -instructions. - -Mr. MERCER next rose. None of the communications from the Secretary of -the Treasury had removed his suspicions relative to the transactions of -that department. What had fallen in the course of the discussion, had -not removed his doubts. He confessed himself more at a loss than ever to -account for the conduct of that officer. To judge of the propriety of -his conduct, it was necessary to consider what his duties are, and -investigate whether a necessity existed to justify the drawing -complained of. Gentlemen, in their arguments, had alluded to some -observations that had fallen from him on other occasions expressive of -his opinion, that there had been corruption in that department. This -opinion he still entertained. He suggested that some irregularities had -taken place as to the money appropriated to the Sinking Fund. This might -be the fact, and his suspicions were sufficiently urgent to warrant him -in suggesting that it might be possible. At the close of 1792, he stated -there was a balance of cash in the Treasury of $2,331,182, and the bonds -due in the course of the present year would produce a sum of about -$2,269,000. Yet a proposition was made in the House, predicated on a -total want of money in the Treasury, to borrow $800,000 in addition to -the $400,000 already borrowed of the bank. - -[Here Mr. BOUDINOT interrupted the member, as being out of order. The -Chairman, conceiving Mr. MERCER's remarks to be introductory to, and -connected with the observations he intended to make on the resolution, -declared him in order.] - -Mr. MERCER proceeded to show, by sundry statements and calculations, -that there was no necessity for this loan of $800,000. The House, he -said, to discharge their duty, should be satisfied how the money -appropriated was applied, before they consented to repeated additional -appropriations. When calls for information had been made by the House, -with a view to comply with this their indispensable duty, the Secretary -had thought it sufficient to balance money actually received, by -calculations of sums that would probably be wanted agreeably to -appropriations. Were dollars, he asked, to be balanced by absolute -appropriations? Can things certain be balanced by things uncertain? -Actual expenditure would alone balance actual receipt. Appropriations -founded only on uncertain calculations could not show the money actually -laid out. He adverted to some calculations made to ascertain the -probable expenses of the War Department. - -[Here the member was again called to order, and was declared out of -order by the Chairman.] - -Mr. M. confined his observations more immediately to the resolution -before the committee. It had been said, that the interest paid was paid -out of moneys that were to be drawn to this country, and were replaced -here by funds from the domestic resources originally appropriated for -that object, and that the dead letter of the law, if any part of it, had -alone been violated. He contended there had been an essential violation. - -The sums drawn for and appropriated to reduce the public debt, were not -applied to that purpose; the domestic resources appropriated to that -object, never were exhausted. If this is the case, conclusions surely -unfavorable to that officer must naturally follow. - -He proceeded to make some remarks on the question, whether the Secretary -had acted under instructions from the PRESIDENT. It was disagreeable, he -premised, to criminate the character of any officer. He bore a great -respect for the PRESIDENT, for his virtues, talents, and services, but -however grating to his feelings it might be to find fault with any part -of his conduct in this matter, he was unable to discharge his duty under -his present impressions, unless he avowed that he conceived that officer -had violated the law, though he allowed, without intention, by not -inquiring into the subject, while transacting, as it was his duty to do. -He must declare that he saw no proof that the Secretary had acted under -the PRESIDENT's instructions. On the contrary, he saw the reverse, -there was even no presumptive proof of the fact. The House has called -for information as to the extent of the authority delegated by the -PRESIDENT to the Secretary. Either the Secretary has produced the proof -of this authority, or he has not complied with the order of the House; -it does appear that he has gone beyond it in making the drafts -complained of. The PRESIDENT directed that the proceeds of the loan be -immediately applied to pay the French; yet a great portion of that money -was brought over here. It was said that he might have brought the whole -here if he chose and paid it to the French here. This argument goes on -the presumption that the PRESIDENT might do wrong without incurring -blame. But the PRESIDENT expressly directed it to be paid immediately to -France; and the House had no right to presume that he did direct the -money to be drawn here, when proof to the contrary appears. Upon the -whole, he concluded that the law had been broken in letter and -substance, and that the Secretary had acted without proper instructions -from the PRESIDENT. - -Mr. LIVERMORE observed, that the charge against the Treasury Department -was at first well calculated to beget serious alarm. When -misapplications of the public money are sounded in the public ear, all -feel interested, knowing, that what affects the public purse, must in a -degree affect the purses of each private individual. In the present -stage of the subject, he was happy in being able to felicitate himself -and his fellow-citizens, that even should the whole of the charges -contained in the resolutions be proved, it would not appear that they -had lost a farthing by the conduct so loudly complained of. What is the -charge? That the Secretary has paid an interest that was justly due; why -then, he presumed we should not have it again to pay. If the Secretary -has paid what was due, what then is the complaint? It was surely not -intended that it should not have been paid. This was not the intention -of Congress; for they passed an act providing funds for its payment. The -Secretary was then right to pay it. But, it is said, he paid with the -wrong money. He saw no harm in not paying it with the very dollars -appropriated, and approved of the operation, which saved drawing with -the one hand and remitting with the other; in this there was no crime -committed, no loss incurred. It appears, on the contrary, that something -was gained by it. So far, then, he was clear, no law had been violated, -nor was any rule of propriety departed from. He then touched upon the -Secretary's disputed right to draw. He contended, that he had that -right. The loans were obtained under the joint authority of the two -acts. It was said that more than two millions, the amount appropriated -for the Sinking Fund, were drawn over; but, he insisted, he might have -drawn the other twelve millions, if it had been for the public interest -so to do. The French wished to be paid here, and it being no loss, but -rather a profit, to comply with their wish, where was the harm in so -doing? If any public loss had been incurred owing to these drafts, then -blame would lie. He concluded, by expressing his hearty approbation of -the conduct of the officer who is criminated by the resolutions, and -declared it as his firm intention to give them his negative. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE argued, that the interest paid, was not paid out of the -$2,000,000 loan, and that the drafts were made agreeably to the -directions of the PRESIDENT. He showed this by the documents which had -been already referred to. He put in a clear point of view the propriety -of avoiding the expense and risk of drafts and correspondent -remittances, and concluded by giving his approbation to the conduct of -the Secretary in the transactions complained of, and by expressing it as -his firm belief that a majority of the committee, from the evidence -before them, would undoubtedly be of opinion that the charges brought -forward are unfounded. - -Mr. SEDGWICK rose to correct a mistake of Mr. MERCER's. The gentleman -had asserted, that the Secretary had drawn on Europe, before the loan, -obtained by the commissioners under the old Government, was ratified. -This was not the case. The loan had been ratified in pursuance of the -provisions of the act authorizing it. The PRESIDENT in his Speech, -December 8, 1790, says, "that agreeably to the powers vested in him at -the last session, the loans in Holland had been completed." - -By existing acts of the Legislature, and from express communications -from the Secretary of the Treasury, it appears, that all the moneys -borrowed were deemed borrowed under the joint authority of both acts, -and not to be solely appropriated for the payment of the foreign debt. - -Mr. MERCER explained, that he had said, that the Secretary had drawn -from the loan obtained under the authority of the old Government, before -said loan was legalized by law. If the Legislature had the right to -legalize it, they had the right to reject it. - -Mr. LEE next rose. He observed that as he found himself under the -necessity of differing from his friend who had moved the resolution, -with whom he generally agreed in opinion, and was accustomed to act, he -begged the attention of the committee for a few minutes. To determine -whether the Secretary of the Treasury had acted legally, it was -necessary to examine whether the authority from the PRESIDENT and his -subsequent instructions authorized him to consolidate the loans under -the acts of the 4th and 12th August, 1790. - -On this question Mr. L. observed, that there seemed to be no objection -to such a construction, except that which arose from the difference of -interest allowed by those acts; that the first loan was commenced -without any regular authority by a company in Amsterdam; that it -received its authenticity from the acceptance of the Secretary of the -Treasury. The interest and douceurs on this loan amounted to more than -an interest of five per cent., which was the only premium contemplated -by the act of the 12th of August. It could consequently be accepted only -under the act of the 4th of August, which gave no limitation to the -interest which was to be allowed. The money seemed therefore solely -applicable to the payment of the foreign debt. From his report of the -24th of February, 1791, the Secretary himself seemed to have had this -impression; Congress seemed also to have this impression as on the 3d of -March following they passed an act authorizing the application of this -loan to the object of the act of the 12th of August, 1790. After the 3d -of March, 1791, therefore, the Secretary of the Treasury had a right to -bring this money to America for the purposes of the Sinking Fund. The -interest of the foreign debt becoming due, for which domestic revenues -were pledged, he thought it prudent to pay that interest out of this -loan, relying on the domestic revenues to replace it for the purposes of -the Sinking Fund. This was a mode of bringing the money here, and he was -not limited in his discretion as to the mode; and therefore had a right -to follow that which appeared to him most advantageous. The paying of -the foreign interest out of this loan was made after the 3d of March, -1791. - -Mr. L. had no doubt as to the legality of all the proceedings relative -to moneys drawn to this country subsequent to the third of March, 1791; -even the moneys borrowed for the foreign debt, because a higher interest -than five per cent. was stipulated for, on any of the subsequent loans, -and because the PRESIDENT, in his instructions to the Secretary, leaves -the mode of paying the foreign debt to his discretion. If he judged it -for the advantage of the United States to bring this money, in the first -place, to America, the legality of such a measure cannot be questioned, -though the economy and wisdom of it may not be admitted. On this point, -Mr. L. acknowledged, that he had not time to examine minutely all the -statements and reports of the Secretary to judge of those exigencies -which induced the drawing of all the money which had been drawn to -America. - -Whether it had been consistent or not with the interest of the United -States, Mr. L. was of opinion, that the Secretary had legally a right to -bring all the money he had drawn for to America, except what was drawn -prior to the third of March, 1791. This money was drawn out of the first -loan; it was drawn, as declared, for the Sinking Fund; the first loan, -for the reasons before stated, could not be applied, and consequently, -till the act of the 3d of March, 1791, this money could not be legally -drawn for the Sinking Fund. Perhaps this act caused the irregularity of -this proceeding. - -But is not the Secretary of the Treasury subject to blame? Mr. L. -observed, he thought he was not altogether free from it. At the meeting -of Congress on the 8th day of December, 1790, the PRESIDENT in his -Speech informed both Houses, that the first loan had been accepted, and -that the Secretary of the Treasury had directions to lay the particulars -before them. But what did he do? On the 15th of December following, he -began to draw money on account of this loan to America, for the Sinking -Fund; though from his report on the 24th of February, 1791, he appears -to have had a doubt as to the legality of this proceeding. He delayed -giving information, in conformity to the PRESIDENT's Speech, till a few -days before the dissolution of Congress. This conduct, Mr. L. said, -seemed to argue a distrust of the Legislative Councils. Mr. L. dilated -on the necessity of the purest and most confidential communication -between the Secretary of the Treasury and the Legislature, and said, -though he could not agree to the resolution then under consideration, -there was one, subsequent to it, relating to this point, which he was -sorry to find himself under the necessity of voting for. - -Mr. BOUDINOT considered it as the duty of the committee in the -discussion of the charges brought forward to confine themselves strictly -to the points in question. The present examination differed from -ordinary Legislative business. Specific charges are brought forward -against a highly responsible officer; the facts brought forward to -support those charges should be understood and considered, to form a -right judgment on them. The Secretary is charged with having violated a -law, by paying the interest due on a loan out of the principal of that -loan. He went into some statements and calculations to show that the -money paid on account of foreign loans, as stated in official documents, -could not have been paid on account of interest of the late loans, from -the disproportion of the sums. - -He need say nothing more, he conceived, to show that the first charge in -the resolution immediately before the committee is unfounded. If what he -said was not sufficient to disprove it, he asked where is the evidence -to support it? - -He next turned to the second charge in the resolution, viz: that the -Secretary had made the drafts complained of without the PRESIDENT's -instructions. Here he noticed a mistake some gentlemen had fallen into, -when speaking of the call of the House for information. This was a -request to the PRESIDENT, and not an order to the Secretary. From the -information communicated in consequence of this call, it did not appear -that the Secretary had acted without, or contrary to instructions, and -he insisted, that he ought to be presumed innocent till he was proved -guilty. - -He argued that the authority given to the PRESIDENT in the subject put -it in his power to draw the whole fourteen millions to this country, if -he thought fit; it could not, therefore, he contended, be insisted, that -the amount of the drafts had passed the limits of the authority given. -It is not denied, he proceeded, that there was a right to draw for the -two millions appropriated for the reduction of the public debt. Well, it -has appeared, on a certain occasion to the House, that our Minister in -France negotiated a contract with the National Assembly, or their -officers, for the payment of $800,000 of the debt due them, here; then -certainly, the exigency of the case required that this sum should be -drawn here for the purchase of provisions for St. Domingo, in which this -payment was to be made. Here then was a positive necessity of drawing -for $2,800,000 and as a discretionary power in the subject had been left -to the Executive, they might have found it advisable, perhaps, under an -expectation of additional payments in the same manner to have drawn over -as much more as they might have thought prudent. - -He adverted to the application of the Secretary to the Legislature to -declare whether the loan obtained, for an interest of five per cent., -exclusive of douceurs, might be considered as borrowed under authority -of the $2,000,000 act. It was his (Mr. BOUDINOT's) opinion at the time, -that no explanatory law was necessary; and that the Executive had power -to construe the act in that sense. This was also the Secretary's -opinion, and in consequence of that opinion he had drawn bills. He -thought it however right to apply to the House and have every doubt -removed, and the Legislature sanctioned his construction of the law. - -It had been said, that if the Legislature had a right to confirm, they -also had a right to reject the construction put upon the law by the -Executive. This, he conceived, they would not have been warranted in -doing, after a contract agreeably to that construction had been made; -such a proceeding must have involved a breach of contract. - -It had been repeatedly asserted and strenuously insisted on, that the -Legislature were totally in the dark, as to the drafts from Europe. To -disprove this assertion, he read several items from sundry reports of -the Secretary, where sums received on account of loans are specified. It -had also been said, that there was no evidence that any part of the loan -was applied to or intended for the purchase of the public debt. - -This also appears unfounded, from a note dated 25th of August, 1790, -laid before the Trustees for purchasing the public debt, which expressly -mentions, that a loan had been negotiated, part of which was destined -for the purchase of the public debt, and that some points relative -thereto were before the PRESIDENT for his approbation. This also showed -that the PRESIDENT had knowledge of such intentions. His Speech, and the -Report of the Secretary, in consequence of part of that Speech, which -had been so repeatedly referred to, also unequivocally prove this point. - -He recapitulated the heads of his arguments, and concluded, that if -nothing further could be brought in support of the charges now before -the committee, they should have his decided negative. - -Mr. MADISON.--He wished not, he said, to waste a moment of the small -portion of time left, by regretting its insufficiency for a full -discussion of the subject before the committee. But he thought it due to -truth, and to the honorable and independent motives of his colleague -(Mr. GILES) in proposing the resolutions, to remark, that the lateness -of the day to which they had been postponed did not justify the -strictures which had been made on it. If the delay was not to be -considered as unavoidable, some blame, at least, would fall elsewhere. -The inquiries in which the whole matter originated, had been moved by -his colleague, and passed the House some weeks ago. The reports in -answer to these inquiries had not been finally made and printed a single -day before the present resolutions were submitted to the House. He -admitted that it might have been impracticable to report the information -called for, as early as was desired by the House. He was sensible of the -anxiety that would be naturally felt by the officer called upon, to -present every consideration that might place his conduct in the most -favorable point of view; yet, with all these allowances, it was -impossible to deny that the reports contained things which did not -belong to them, and therefore consumed time which, belonged to the -period for discussion. He would mention one instance on which there -could not possibly be a difference of opinion, viz: the vindication, -formally undertaken by the Secretary, of the policy of borrowing money -abroad. Whether his policy was right or wrong, the Legislature had -themselves decided in favor of it; and it was the duty of the Secretary, -in complying with the orders of the House, to inform the House how the -law had been executed--not why it had been made; to explain his own -conduct,--not to justify that of the Legislature. - -It had been asked why the call for information had not been sooner made? -The answer was obvious and simple. It was not sooner perceived by the -House, that there was such a necessity for it. The want of information -was first suggested by the bill for paying $2,000,000 to the Bank, -although $200,000 only were immediately due, and for authorizing another -foreign loan to the amount of $2,000,000. From the dawn of light thrown -by some circumstances incident to the occasion on the darkness in which -the House had remained, proceeded those doubts and inquiries which had -led to the information now possessed. His colleague had great merit in -having brought about this development. He had rendered a service highly -valuable to the Legislature, and no less important and acceptable to the -public. One good effect of the information had been, that it prevented -the passage of the bill for borrowing $2,000,000 as an anticipated -payment to the Bank. The bill had dropped from the hand of its patron -with the first light that broke in upon the House. What other measures -would have been prevented or varied, if a like knowledge of our funds -and finances had been sooner obtained, was matter of serious -consideration. - -Another consequence of the reports, taken together, was, that the face -of them presented to his colleague an evidence of the charges contained -in the resolutions. Whether, at so late a day, it was best to leave the -subject as exhibited by the various documents in print, for the -examination and opinion of the public, or to press it on the -consideration of the House, was a point which every member had a right -to decide for himself. His colleague had viewed the positions stated in -his motion as too important to be suspended, and as supported by such -clear and authentic proofs, that a small portion of time would suffice -for the subject. Under this impression, what was his right became his -duty; and he had discharged it by offering his resolutions to the House. - -As the House had refused to commit the two introductory resolutions, -which established the rule of judgment to be applied to the case, and -the last also, which declared the inference to be drawn, the task of the -committee was limited to a simple inquiry into the facts stated. They -were to make out and report a special verdict of these, and leave it to -the House to pronounce the proper judgment arising from them. - -The resolution immediately before the committee imported, "that the -Secretary of the Treasury had violated the law passed on the 4th of -August, 1790, making appropriations of certain moneys," first, "by -applying a certain portion of the principal borrowed to the payment of -interest on that principal;" secondly, "by drawing part of the same -moneys into the United States, without the instruction of the -PRESIDENT." - -The questions here are questions of fact; and whatever quality may be -attached by different gentlemen to the several facts, it would seem as -if the facts themselves are too clearly supported by the Reports of the -Secretary, and the documents attending them, to be denied or -controverted. - -The law of August 4, 1790, authorized the PRESIDENT to cause to be -borrowed $12,000,000, to be applied to the Foreign Debt of the United -States. A subsequent law of August 12, 1790, authorized another loan of -$2,000,000, to be applied to the Domestic Debt of the United States. A -power to make these loans was delegated, on the 28th of August, 1790, to -the Secretary, by a general commission, in the usual form, referring to -the several acts above mentioned, but without any further discrimination -of the loans to be made. As the law, however, for applying loans to the -foreign object was prior in date, the presumption would rather be that -it was to have a priority of execution; that the first money borrowed -was to belong to the first object provided for. It was unnecessary, -however, to dwell on this consideration, because the PRESIDENT had -removed all uncertainty by the precise explanations and instructions -which accompanied the power to the Secretary, and which ought, in truth, -to be deemed a part of the commission. The instruction having been more -than once read to the committee, he would content himself with referring -to it. - -The part referred to is in the following words: - - "I do hereby make known to you on the execution of the said - trust, you are to observe and follow the orders and - directions following, viz: Except where otherwise - especially directed by me, you shall employ in the - negotiation of any loan or loans which may be made in any - foreign country, William Short, Esq.; you shall borrow, or - cause to be borrowed, on the best terms which shall be - found practicable, and within the limitations prescribed by - law as to time of repayment and rate of interest, such sum - or sums as shall be sufficient to discharge, as well all - instalments or parts of the principal of the foreign debt, - which are now due, or shall become payable to the end of - the year 1791, as all interest and arrears of interest - which now are, or shall become due, in respect to the said - debt, to the same end of the year 1791. And you shall - apply, or cause to be applied, the moneys which shall be so - borrowed, with all convenient despatch, to the payment of - the said instalments, and parts of the principal and - interest, and arrears of interest of the said debt. You - shall not extend the amount of the loan which you shall - make, or cause to be made, beyond the sum which shall be - necessary for completing such payment, unless it can be - done upon terms more advantageous to the United States, - than those upon which the residue of the said debt shall - stand or be. But if the said residue, or any part of the - same, can be paid off by new loans, upon terms of advantage - to the United States, you shall cause such further loans as - may be requisite to be made, and the proceeds thereof to be - applied accordingly. And for carrying into effect the - objects and purposes aforesaid, I do hereby further empower - you to make, or cause to be made, with whomsoever it may - concern, such contract or contracts, being of a nature - relative thereto, as shall be found needful and conducive - to the interest of the United States." - -By this formal act, issued along with the commission to the Secretary, -the PRESIDENT designated the object to which the loans to be made were -to be applied; and by declaring the object to be that provided for by -the act of August 4, 1790, he expressly placed the loan under the -authority and provision of that act; so that the moment the money should -be borrowed, it was to stand legally appropriated to its specified -object--as much as if another law authorizing another loan for another -purpose, had not existed. - -This arrangement of the PRESIDENT was the more proper, not only because -provision for the payment of the foreign debt had been the primary -object of the Legislature, and the payment of the French debt the -anxious wish of their constituents, but because payments to France were -no longer matter of option, but of strict and positive obligation on the -United States. In proof of this, he stated that the debt of France, -calculated to the end of 1791, and computing the livre at 5 4-10 to a -dollar, amounted to $4,814,814, whilst the payments actually made, -computing the florin at 2-1/2 to a dollar, amounted to more than -$3,372,717, leaving, as a balance, at the end of 1791, $1,442,097. -Adding to this balance the instalments due for 1792, amounting to -$638,888, there were to be paid within that year $2,080,985. The entire -payments, however, composed of $656,500 in Europe, and $726,000 put to -the account of St. Domingo, (although $444,263, 83 were actually paid,) -amounted to $1,382,500, leaving due at the end of 1792, a balance of -$698,485. - -Here Mr. M. adverted to and read a paragraph in the Report of the -Secretary, page 16, where in allusion to the measure of drawing bills in -the latter part of 1792, he says: "I feel myself the more at liberty to -do it, because it did not interfere with a complete fulfilment of the -public engagements in regard to the foreign debt. It could be done -consistently with a full reimbursement of all arrears and instalments -which had accrued on account of that debt." - -Mr. M. observed, that, as he could not reconcile this paragraph with the -calculations which he had stated, and which were drawn from official -documents, he must regard it as an unquestionable error, produced by -some hasty view of the subject. - -Returning to the commission, Mr. M. repeated that all the money which -that instrument, defined and qualified by the instruction annexed to it, -authorized the Secretary to borrow, was actually and specifically -appropriated to the payment of the foreign debt, and under circumstances -particularly urgent, in relation to a part of it. - -In what manner had this trust been carried into execution? It was to be -observed, with regret, that, on the very day on which the commission and -instruction issued from the President, the Secretary commenced his -arrangement for diverting part of the loan, accepted and ratified by -virtue of his commission, to a purpose different from that specified and -required by his instruction. That a fact of so extraordinary a -complexion might be grounded on the most unexceptionable proof, Mr. M. -said he should take the liberty of supporting it by the authority of the -Secretary himself. Here he read from the Secretary's letter, dated -August 28, 1790, to the Dutch houses from whom the loan had been -accepted, the following passages, viz: - - "I should also wish, for particular reasons, that the - business may be so regulated as to give it the form of two - loans--one for two millions under the first act, and the - other for one million under the second. But neither about - this am I so solicitous as to be willing that it should - constitute an embarrassment." - - "I destine a million and a half of this sum as a payment to - France, under the direction of Mr. Short, our Chargé - d'Affaires at that Court, whose orders for that purpose you - will please to follow." - -The aspect here presented by a comparison of the several documents, was -singular and remarkable. The subordinate officer appeared in direct -opposition to the Chief Magistrate. The agent was seen overruling, by -his own orders, the orders of his principal. The language of the -President was, "By virtue of the power vested in me by law, I destine -the money to be borrowed to the discharge of the instalments and -interest of the foreign debt." The language of the Secretary was: "I -destine a part of the money only to that purpose, and a part to be -brought to the United States for other purposes." He left every member -to make his own reflections on the subject. He would only observe, in -general, that it demonstrated the truth asserted in the proposition, -that the Secretary had violated both the law of August 4, 1790, and the -instruction of the President relating to it. - -He then proceeded to a more distinct view of the two points particularly -stated in the resolution. The first was, "That a certain portion of the -principal borrowed under the act of August 4, 1790, had been applied to -the payment of the interest falling due on that principal." As the fact -would not, he presumed, be denied, he forebore to quote that part of the -documents which admitted and authenticated it. He would, however, -premise to any observations on it, a cursory view of the nature of -appropriations. - -It was unnecessary to repeat the emphatic remarks on this subject, which -had fallen from the member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. FINDLAY.) It was -sufficiently understood. He concluded that appropriations of money were -of a high and sacred character; that they were the great bulwark which -our constitution had carefully and jealously established against -Executive usurpations. He meant only to take notice of the different -plans into which appropriations might be moulded, and of the particular -operation which ought to be given to them. - -One of the plans was that of appropriating specified funds to specified -objects, in which the supposed certainty of the funds was adjusted to -the supposed importance of the objects. - -The other plan formed all the branches of revenue into an aggregate -fund, on which the several objects should have a priority of claim -according to their superiority of importance. It was evident that in -both these cases, the Legislature alone possessed the competent -authority. The exclusive right of that department of the Government to -make the proper regulations, was the basis of the utility and efficacy -of appropriations. - -There was a third question incident to the doctrine of appropriations, -viz: Whether, under specific appropriations, such as had been adopted by -Congress, the Executive authority could, without special permission of -the law, apply the excess of one fund to the aid of a deficient one, or -borrow from one fund for the object of another. On this question, there -might perhaps be a difference of opinion. He would only remark, that, -admitting such a discretion to be implied in the trust of executing the -laws, it would still be requisite that the due sanction of the Executive -should be given, that a regular account should be kept between the -different funds, and that all advances from one to the other should be -replaced as soon as possible. This was equally necessary to the -preservation of order in the public finances, and to a proper respect -for the authority of the laws. - -In the present case, it did not appear that the moneys taken at -different times from the loans designated by the President, and thereby -placed under the appropriation of the act of August 4, 1790, to the -foreign debt, had ever been replaced. It did not appear that any such -replacement was regularly planned or provided for. It was particularly -worthy of observation, moreover, that the only use within the United -States for which any loan in Europe could be assigned, was that of the -Sinking Fund; that the Trustees of this fund had never been even -informed of the drafts; that if the moneys drawn had been carried to the -Sinking Fund, the limited sum of $2,000,000 would have been exceeded; -and that the statements and accounts had, in fact, been so wound up, as -mentioned by the Secretary, that not a single dollar of the money laid -out in purchasing the public debt had been charged on loans drawn into -the United States, although such was the only purpose to which they were -legally applicable, and such the principal reason assigned for making -the drafts. - -He did not go into a particular proof that the sum drawn into the United -States, after subtracting the whole sum placed to a foreign account, -exceeded the sum of $2,000,000, because the fact had been conceded on -the other side, particularly by the statement of the member from -Connecticut, (Mr. HILLHOUSE.) - -Thus it appeared clearly, in confirmation of the first point, that the -application of a certain portion of the principal borrowed in Europe, to -payment of the interest, was not a mere transposition of moneys, to -prevent the sending them backwards or forwards, nor an advance of money -from an overflowing fund in favor of a deficient one; but an absolute -diversion of appropriated money, and consequently a violation of the law -making the appropriation. - -The second point in the resolution related to the drawing of moneys into -the United States without the instruction of the President. This point -had been fully established by the documents and explanations applied to -the first. They had done more: they had demonstrated that the -instructions of the President, which dedicated the loans to be made -under his commission to a foreign object, were an express prohibition of -drafts for any domestic object. It was sufficient, therefore, to refer -to the instructions of the President, and to the contradictory steps -taken by the Secretary. Two attempts had been made to elude the force of -these official proofs. The first appealed to the President's Speech at -the opening of the session in 1790; to the Report of the Secretary, made -in consequence of it, to the House; and to the supplementary act of -Congress passed in conformity to the Report. - -Had the circumstances involved in this transaction been attended to by -those who seemed to rely on it, Mr. M. was persuaded that a reference to -it would never have been made by gentlemen on that side. As they had -thought fit, however, to draw arguments from that source, it was proper -to give an answer to them; and the best answer would be a naked -statement of facts. - -The instruction of the President to the Secretary was given, as has been -seen, on the 28th of August, 1790. The letter of the Secretary -contravening this instruction, was dated, as has also been seen, on the -same 28th day of August, 1790. The actual drawing of bills by the -Secretary commenced the 15th of December, 1790. The law now pleaded in -justification of the conduct of the Secretary, passed on the 3d of -March, 1791. - -There are other facts material to a correct and full view of the -subject. The Speech of the President was delivered on the 8th of -December, 1790. It briefly informed the two Houses that "a loan of -3,000,000 of florins, towards which some provisional measures had -previously taken place, had been completed in Holland," and "that the -Secretary of the Treasury had discretion to communicate such further -particulars as might be requisite for more precise information." The -consequent Report of the Secretary, recommending the provision in the -supplementary act, was not received till the 25th of February, 1791--six -days only before the constitutional dissolution of the House. In the -interval between the Speech of the President and the Secretary's Report, -he had proceeded to draw bills to the amount of 793,392 florins. His -report, notwithstanding what had been said of it, contained not a word -from which it could be known that a single florin had been actually -drawn over to the United States. - -The other attempt to elude the evidence before the committee, recoiled -with equal force on the gentlemen who had hazarded it. In the report -lately made by the trustees of the Sinking Fund, is a statement laid -before them by the Secretary, in which it is noted "that the acceptance -of the loan of 3,000,000 of florins, and the application of one-third of -it to the purpose of that fund, was under the consideration of the -President." From this fact, it had been inferred, not only that the -Secretary had withheld no proper information from the Trustees, but that -the result of the President's deliberations on the subject had varied -the purpose signified by his first instructions to the Secretary. - -It happened, however, most unfortunately for the gentlemen who exulted -in this argument, that they had entirely overlooked the dates of the two -papers. The paper laid before the Trustees, and alleged to have -explained the final purpose of the President, was dated on the 25th of -August, 1790. The paper relied on by the other side, as the final, as -well as the most formal, designation of the will of the President, was -dated the 28th of August, 1790. The gentlemen, therefore, instead of -the inference they had made, should have reversed their premises, and -joined with their opponents in concluding that the President was led by -a consideration of the subject, not to do what the Secretary, in his -note to the Trustees, seemed to anticipate, but what had been evinced by -the President's own act of posterior date. - -The second point, then, as well as the first, rests on the most solid -proofs, taken from a collective view of authentic documents. - -Much has been said on the necessity of sometimes departing from the -strictness of legal appropriations, as a plea for any freedoms that may -have been taken with them by the Secretary. He would not deny that there -might be emergencies, in the course of human affairs, of so -extraordinary and pressing a nature, as to absolve the Executive from an -inflexible conformity to the injunctions of the law. It was, -nevertheless, as essential to remember, as it was obvious to remark, -that in all such cases, the necessity should be palpable; that the -Executive sanction should flow from the supreme source; and that the -first opportunity should be seized for communicating to the Legislature -the measures pursued, with the reasons explaining the necessity of them. -This early communication was equally enforced by prudence and by duty. -It was the best evidence of the motives for assuming the extraordinary -power; it was a respect manifestly due to the Legislative authority; and -it was more particularly indispensable, as that alone would enable the -Legislature, by a provident amendment of the law, to accommodate it to -like emergencies in future. - -In the proceedings falling under the present inquiry, no necessity -appeared for the liberties which had been taken, the money appropriated -in Europe being more wanted there than at home. It appeared that the -instructions of the Supreme Executive, instead of warranting those -liberties, had precluded them; nor had the proper explanations been -disclosed in due time to the Legislature. To place the subject in a more -distinct point of view, it was proper to advert to the precise -authorities and duties of the Secretary, as his office is defined by the -act establishing the Treasury Department. For this purpose, Mr. M. read -the second section of that act, which is in the words following: - - "That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury - to digest and prepare plans for the improvement and - management of the revenue, and for the support of public - credit; to prepare and report estimates of the public - revenue and the public expenditures; to superintend the - collection of the revenue, to decide on the forms of - keeping and stating accounts and making returns, and to - grant, under the limitations herein established, or to be - hereafter provided, all warrants for moneys to be issued - from the Treasury, in pursuance of appropriations by law; - to execute such services relative to the sale of the lands - belonging to the United States as may be by law required of - him; to make report and give information to either branch - of the Legislature, in person or in writing, (as he may be - required,) respecting all matters referred to him by the - Senate or House of Representatives, or which shall - appertain to his office; and generally to perform all such - services relative to the finances as he shall be directed - to perform." - -This establishment of the office evidently had no reference beyond the -case of superintending the regular and ordinary collection of the -revenue, and granting warrants for moneys issued from the Treasury, in -pursuance of appropriations by law. The case of loans, as an occasional -and extraordinary resource, was left to be provided for by particular -laws for the purpose. The authority, with respect to the loans in -question, was accordingly committed to the PRESIDENT, in order to secure -for so special a trust, the highest responsibility to be found in the -Government. And when it was considered that the whole sum contemplated -was no less than fourteen millions of dollars, and when the latitude as -to the terms and contracts was combined with the vastness of the sum, it -might well be questioned whether so great a power would have been -delegated to any man in whom the Legislature and the people of America -had less confidence than they so justly reposed in the existing Chief -Magistrate, and whether an equal power will ever be committed to a -successor. This distinction between the case of ordinary revenue and -that of loans is not only consonant to the actual policy of our laws, -but is founded in obvious and solid considerations. In the collection -and disbursement of the ordinary revenues arising from taxation, the -business flows in official channels, is subject in every stage to -official checks, and the money, being in constant influx and efflux, -nowhere accumulates in immense sums. The case of loans is, in all these -respects, different. In settling the terms and arranging the -negotiations, there is always an important discretion involved. When the -loans are foreign, as well as great, regulations concerning the bills of -exchange form another occasion where great latitude is implied in the -trust; whilst the magnitude of the sums, falling under the same -direction at the same moment, present a further and material variance -between the two cases. The tendency of these observations is to show -that, as the permanent law establishing the Treasury Department does not -extend the authority of the Secretary to the case of loans and as the -law authorizing loans exacts, for special reasons, a responsibility from -the PRESIDENT himself, the authority of the Secretary, in executing the -loans, and the appropriation of them, must be derived from the -PRESIDENT; and, consequently, where that authority fails, there can be -no resort to the law establishing the department, much less to any -general discretion incident to his official character. It is evident -that the PRESIDENT, although no doubt guided by the most proper -considerations in employing the agency of the Secretary of the Treasury -in the business of the loans, might, if he had judged fit, have -substituted the agency of another; and that, whatever agency he might -prefer, his own instructions would always regulate the extent and -exercise of the power conferred. The want of any apparent authority from -the PRESIDENT had led several gentlemen to insist on presumed -authorities, superseding the instructions joined with the commission to -the Secretary. But here, again, the fair inference was to be reversed. A -communication of the authorities given by the PRESIDENT to the -Secretary, as to the application of the foreign loans, had been -expressly requested by the vote of the House. It was not to be supposed -that the Secretary, if he had received further authorities or -instructions, would have failed to produce them, or to refer to them, in -the justification of his conduct. Far less could it be presumed that the -PRESIDENT, if he had given any superseding authorities or instructions, -would not have caused them to be communicated to the House, or that he -would have suffered a partial communication to mislead the House into an -error as to so important a fact. The PRESIDENT was the last man in the -world to whom any measure whatever of a deceptive tendency could be -credibly attributed. - -Thus far (said Mr. M.) his observations had departed as little as -possible from the question in its strictest sense. He should now avail -himself of the opportunity afforded by the terms of the last clause, -which spoke of drafts generally, to take a more particular notice of -those recently made; in doing which, he considered himself safe within -the Rules of the House, which were so rigorously enforced against the -affirmative side of the question. The whole amount of foreign loans -transferred directly or indirectly to the United States appeared from -the several statements to be about $3,000,000. The amount of the direct -drafts was $2,304,769 13. Of the drafts made since the 16th of April, -1792, and sold by the bank, the proceeds now in the bank, or payable -into it, before the 1st of April next, amount to $1,220,476 01. Of this -sum $510,000 have been drawn in the course of the present session in -Congress. With respect to the times and the amount of these drafts, -hitherto absolutely unknown to the Legislature, because the account of -them had remained in the books of the bank without ever appearing in the -books of the Treasurer, Mr. M. confessed that he had found no -explanations that were satisfactory to him. He had looked through all -the reports and all the communications before the House, without -discovering either that they had been made by the authority or with the -knowledge of the PRESIDENT, or had been required for, or applied to the -purchase of, the public debt, or had been ever communicated to the -Trustees of the Sinking Fund, who had the direction of such purchases, -or that they were the effect of any necessity that could justify them. -And if there was no evident necessity for the proceeding, it was the -more to be lamented that, whilst we were every where sympathizing with -our allies in their arduous struggles for liberty, and echoing, from -every part of the Union, our congratulations and good wishes, the -pecuniary succors so critically necessary to their cause, and the most -substantial proof of the sincerity of our professions, should be -silently withdrawn across the Atlantic from the object for which they -were intended--succors, too, which were not merely a tribute of -gratitude, of generosity, or of benevolent zeal for the triumph of -liberty, but a debt moreover of strict and positive obligation, for -value acknowledged and received. In contemplating the subject in this -point of view, he felt a pain which he could not easily express, and to -which, he persuaded himself, the breast of no other member could be a -stranger. Laying aside, however, all these unfavorable considerations, -the important question still remained, why the Legislature had been -uninformed of the moneys so unexpectedly drawn into the bank, and to so -very great an amount? If the drafts had received every requisite -sanction, if they had been produced by the most justifiable causes, the -existence of $1,220,476, in a situation so different from what had been -contemplated, was a fact which the Representatives of the people had a -right to know, which it was important to them and their constituents -that they should know, and which it was the indispensable duty of the -officer charged with it to have made known. This omission was the more -remarkable when considered in relation to the measure above mentioned, -of paying off at once the whole sum of $2,000,000, payable to the bank -by instalments in ten years. A bill for this purpose had been -introduced, and was on its passage; the object of it had been patronized -by a report of the Secretary not long since made. In one of his last -reports he expressly states, among the inducements to such extensive -drafts of money from Europe, that they were made "with an eye to placing -within the reach of the Legislature" the means necessary for this -object. Was it not extraordinary, was it not unaccountable, that so -important a measure should be recommended, and be actually introduced, -and that money otherwise appropriated in Europe should be transferred to -this country and deposited in the bank, in order that it might be within -the reach of being applied by the Legislature to that measure, and yet -that no disclosure should be made to the Legislature of that fact that -the money was so drawn and lay at the bank, within their reach, to be so -applied? If any thing could heighten astonishment on this occasion, it -must be the reason assigned by the Secretary for any obscurity that -might have hung over our finances--"that, till the last resolutions, no -call had been made on the department which rendered it proper to exhibit -a general view of the public moneys and funds, or to show the amount and -situation of such as were unapplied." Mr. M. would not decide that the -Legislature was free from blame in not using more full and efficacious -means of obtaining such information as would have removed all obscurity. -But, whatever degree of blame might fall on them, it never could be -admitted that their calls on the department had furnished no proper -occasion for exhibiting a full view of the public finances. He referred -generally to the various resolutions, which, without the least force of -construction, would have extended to every proper article of -information. He reminded the committee of the latitude of reports under -certain other orders of the House, and asked whether less freedom of -construction was to be allowed when information was to be given, than -when power or discretion was to be exercised? But independently of this -view of the matter, Mr. M. held it to be clear and palpable that the -very situation of the money afforded an occasion which rendered it -proper that the House should be informed of it. If a liberty could be -taken of removing money from Europe, where it stood appropriated by law, -to this country, where there was no legal object that required it, and -with an eye, as was stated, to an object to which no money was -applicable, without the authority of the Legislature, how could it -possibly be supposed improper to take the further liberty of -communicating what was done to the Legislature? He concluded with -recurring to the particular form in which the subject presented itself -to the committee, and repeating that, whatever quality might be attached -to the facts charged, or however improper it might be thought by some to -proceed in haste to any affirmative decision on them, it appeared -irreconcilable with the evidence which had been produced, to decide, by -a negative vote, against the truth of the facts. - -Mr. AMES prefaced his remarks on the subject before the committee by -some observations on the nature of the charges brought forward. He was -happy that they were determinate, and conceived that the defence could -be crowded in a nutshell. As to the first charge in the resolution -immediately before the committee, he had seen no proof in support of it -brought forward. It is founded only on assertion, and he conceived that -contra-assertion was sufficient to meet it. No authority, it was said, -was given to the Secretary to obtain the loan under the blended -authority of both acts. This is not one of the charges included in the -resolutions before the committee, and therefore this is not the time to -answer it. However, if this were fact, nothing criminal could in -consequence be imputed; and, since the purposes of both laws were -carried into execution, there could be no ground for saying that either -was violated. He said much on the impracticability of the line of -conduct which some gentlemen appeared to think ought to have been -followed by the Secretary. It was impossible to keep different funds, -differently appropriated, so inviolably separate as that one might not -be used for the object of the other; all was right, he conceived, -provided what was taken was to be replaced. He was also of opinion that -the overflowing of one fund could be applied to make up the deficiency -of another; and that all that is necessary is to give priority to the -appropriation. The money paid in Europe for interest on the loan was -said to have been improperly applied, because the fund appropriated for -the purpose was here. He insisted that that money was absolutely -represented here by an equal sum: and he contended that, though the -interest was not paid in the identical coin appropriated, yet, by -allowing a very reasonable latitude of expression, it could be said that -the interest was paid with the money appropriated, for the applicability -of the sums there depended on the existence of the fund here. He next -turned to the second charge in the resolution; and, after showing that -the natural presumption was, that the Secretary either was instructed or -had a discretionary power, he then vindicated his conduct in respect to -the drafts of money to this country. He did honor to the motives of the -gentlemen who had instituted the inquiry, and concluded an elegant -speech, by a contrasted picture of our former and present situation as a -country, dwelling upon the importance of preserving harmony, and -insisting on the danger of giving rise to suspicions against a highly -responsible officer, and of bringing forward charges not to be supported -by proof. - -Mr. FINDLAY.--If my hopes respecting the Government have not been -equally elevated with those of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. -AMES,) neither are my apprehensions so much depressed with fears. But I -hope I am equally anxious for the stability and prosperity of the -Government; and though we differ in opinion on this question, yet I am -firmly persuaded that the part I take is the best calculated to promote -the necessary confidence in Government, and secure the virtue of its -administration. As the gentleman, in an elegant discourse, has explained -no difficulties, nor adduced any proofs in support of his opinions, I -will only add, that I believe the Government to be so well established, -and so much beloved by the citizens, as not to be endangered by the -House of Representatives' examining how the laws have been obeyed in the -application of public money, and giving their opinions upon the result -of that examination. - -That the Secretary has not reported fully to this House, in due time, is -so much within the knowledge of every member, that it is impossible to -doubt of the truth of the fact, however we may differ about the -propriety of the conduct. To go no further back than last -session--besides the references to the Secretary to report upon the Ways -and Means, and inform the House what revenues were necessary, on the -20th of February, 1791, a standing order was resolved, directing that he -should report to the House, within a few days after the meeting of the -next session, "an accurate statement and account of the receipts and -expenditures of all the public moneys, in which shall be distinguished -the expenditures which fall under each head of appropriation, and that -it shall be shown the sums, if any, which remain unexpended," &c. Were -not the moneys drawn upon loan, _public moneys_, and were not those -loans appropriated? Undoubtedly, they were strictly so. It is a strange -evasion to say, that by these expressions only the current revenue is -intended. Arguments must be scarce when this becomes necessary. It -requires no refutation. - -On the 19th of January last, he was called upon to "lay before the House -such information with respect to the finances of the United States, as -will enable the Legislature to judge whether any or what additional -revenues will be necessary." In consequence of the recommendations of -the PRESIDENT, and the wishes of this House, to commence the discharge -of the redeemable part of the Funded Debt, a reference was made to the -Secretary, requiring him to report a mode for the application of the -public money for that purpose; the House being assured, by the gentleman -who moved the resolution, that no new tax was intended or necessary. But -the Secretary, so far from informing the House how much money he had -subject to his discretion, in the bank, in notes, &c., proposed a new -and partial tax, as the foundation of a new system of loans. When the -memorable bill to authorize another loan of $2,000,000, was before the -House, a few weeks ago, we were told by gentlemen on this floor, that -there was not time for argument; that the bill must be passed in three -or four days, &c.; and when we wanted information, we were told by some -of the friends of the bill that it was not convenient to give -information there--that we might procure information elsewhere, as they -had done. I confess I did not comprehend this method of legislating; but -the Secretary has since explained it, in one of his reports, by -complaining of the House, because the members did not go to his office -and ask information, instead of requiring it to be publicly reported. - -Even when this favorite bill for a new loan was before the House, the -Secretary did not condescend to inform us that he had, without -authority, provided near a million and a half of dollars for that -purpose; he did not inform us how obligingly he had drawn bills upon our -bankers in Holland, to have the money put in our way. Thus, in order to -anticipate the payments due to the bank, he did what he could to induce -Congress to break the public faith, by repealing the existing -appropriation made for securing the discharge of a debt of justice and -gratitude to the French nation. From this and other instances, it -appears, that however high the Secretary's regard for public credit may -be, there are other considerations which have obtained a higher degree -of his attention than obedience to the laws. The gentleman from Virginia -(Mr. MADISON) has so clearly explained the nature of that discretion -with which the Secretary is vested, and so fully proved that there was -no necessity to justify a departure from the appropriations made by law, -that it is not necessary for me to explain further on this head. -However, I cannot help remarking, that the discretionary powers were -pretty freely exercised. The drawing of bills began early indeed, and -was continued to a recent period. The times of drawing fortunately -corresponded with the necessities of the bank, and the power of -employing agents was pretty freely used. The same agents were frequently -both the sellers and the purchasers of the bills. Perhaps this was -necessary: no doubt it was convenient. Probably it was safe; but who can -say it will be always so. - -I have not said so much to prove the truth of the facts expressed in the -resolution, for of this there can be no doubt--it is as clear as the -sun, shining in daylight,--but, in order to prove the propriety of this -committee expressing its disapprobation of a conduct so unjustifiable. -That information was withheld unduly, is evident, from the lateness of -this discussion; that it was obtained with difficulty, is evident, from -the numerous applications we were obliged to make in order to obtain it. - -The House then adjourned until seven o'clock post meridian. - -EVENING SESSION--7 P.M. - -An engrossed bill making certain appropriations therein mentioned was -read the third time, and passed. - -The bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act providing for the -compensation of Ebenezer Storer," was read twice and committed. - -_Official Conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth resolutions -contained in the motion of Thursday last, respecting the official -conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury. The third resolution being -still under consideration, in the words following, viz: - - "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has - violated the law passed the 4th of August, 1790, making - appropriations of certain moneys authorized to be borrowed - by the said law, in the following particulars, viz: First, - by applying a certain portion of the principal borrowed to - the payment of interest falling due upon that principal, - which was not authorized by that or any other law. - Secondly, by drawing a part of the said moneys into the - United States, without the instructions of the President of - the United States." - -A motion was made, and the question being put, that the House do agree -with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to the -resolution, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 40, nays 12, as -follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias - Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan - Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, - Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Christopher Greenup, Samuel - Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, James - Hillhouse, William Hindman, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, - John Laurance, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, George - Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, - William Vans Murray, Nathaniel Niles, Theodore Sedgwick, - Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, John Steele, - Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, Thomas - Tudor Tucker, Artemas Ward, Hugh Williamson, and Francis - Willis. - - NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, William Findlay, - William B. Giles, Andrew Gregg, Nathaniel Macon, James - Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Alexander D. - Orr, John Page, and Josiah Parker. - -A motion was then made, and the question put, that the House do agree -with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to the -fourth resolution, in the words following: - - "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has - deviated from the instructions given him by the PRESIDENT - OF THE UNITED STATES, in executing the authorities for - making loans, under the acts of the fourth and twelfth of - August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety." - -It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 39, nays 12, as follows: - - [The same as above.] - -Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House -do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to -the fifth resolution, in the words following: - - "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has omitted - to discharge an essential duty of his office, in failing to - give Congress official information, in due time, of the - moneys drawn by him from Europe into the United States; - which drawing commenced December, one thousand seven - hundred and ninety, and continued until January, one - thousand seven hundred and ninety-three; and of the cause - of making such drafts:" - -It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 33, nays 15, as follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias - Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan - Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, - Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Thomas Hartley, James - Hillhouse, William Hindman, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, - John Laurance, Amasa Learned, George Leonard, Samuel - Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans - Murray, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, William Smith, - John Steele, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, George - Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Artemas Ward, and Hugh - Williamson. - - NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, William Findlay, - William B. Giles, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, - Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John - Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Niles, John Page, - Josiah Parker, and Israel Smith. - -Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House -do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to -the sixth resolution, in the words following: - - "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has without - the instruction of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, - drawn more moneys, borrowed in Holland, into the United - States, than the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was - authorized to draw, under the act of the twelfth of - August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, which act - appropriated two millions of dollars only, when borrowed, - to the purchase of the public debt; and that he has omitted - to discharge an essential duty of his office, in failing to - give official information to the commissioners for - purchasing the public debt, of the various sums drawn from - time to time, suggested by him to have been intended for - the purchase of the public debt:" - -It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 33, nays 8, as follows: - - [Yeas as above.] - - NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, William Findlay, - William B. Giles, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John - Francis Mercer, and Josiah Parker. - -Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House -do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to -the seventh resolution, in the words following: - - "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury did not - consult the public interest, in negotiating a loan with the - Bank of the United States, and drawing therefrom four - hundred thousand dollars, at five per centum per annum, - when a greater sum of public money was deposited in various - banks, at the respective periods of making the respective - drafts:" - -It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 33, nays 8, as follows: - - [Same as above.] - -Another motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House -do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their disagreement to -the eighth resolution, in the words following: - - "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury has been - guilty of an indecorum to this House, in undertaking to - judge of its motives in calling for information, which was - demandable of him, from the constitution of his office, and - in failing to give all the necessary information within his - knowledge relatively to the subjects of reference made to - him of the nineteenth of January, one thousand seven - hundred and ninety-two, and of the twenty-second of - November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, during - the present session;" - -Mr. WILLIAM SMITH said, that, after the vote which had just prevailed by -so considerable a majority on the preceding resolutions, the committee -could not, with any propriety, criminate the Secretary of the Treasury -for failing to give the information alluded to, because by that vote it -had been established that the Secretary had only acted under the -authority of the PRESIDENT, and conformably to his instructions. If -there had been any omission to communicate information to Congress, that -omission was surely not chargeable to the Secretary. But it had been -already clearly shown, by documents in the possession of the House, that -the necessary information had been communicated. The Treasurer's -accounts, which had been from time to time laid before the House, -exhibited the amount of moneys proceeding from the sale of bills, and -the Secretary's report of February, 1791, conveyed full information of -the drawing. It was true, there was a sum of about $600,000, the -proceeds of bills which, as had been remarked by a gentleman, (Mr. -MADISON,) did not appear in the Treasurer's account, but this was owing -to the sales of the bills by the bank not having been closed at the time -the last quarterly account was rendered, and consequently that sum could -not appear in the Treasurer's account. - -[Mr. MADISON said, he had not meant to blame the Treasurer.] - -Mr. SMITH proceeded. The gentleman, however, had attributed misconduct -to the Secretary, for withholding information of the amount of moneys in -the Treasury accruing from foreign loans, when directed by the House, -January 19th, 1792, to report whether the existing revenues were -adequate to face the additional expense of the Indian war. Mr. S. could -not forbear expressing great surprise at this remark of the gentleman -from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) when he recollected what had been just -before said by the same gentleman in support of the former resolution. -The gentleman, on that occasion, in his attempt to disprove the right of -the Secretary, _ex officio_, to superintend the moneys derived from the -foreign loans, had endeavored to establish a nice distinction between -the ordinary internal revenues of the country, and the resources -resulting from foreign loans. The law constituting the Treasury -Department, he had said, gave the Secretary power only over the -revenues, which embraced only the ordinary resources, whereas loans were -distinct things, the management of which was specially intrusted by law -to the Supreme Magistrate, and in relation to which the Secretary could -exercise no authority whatever that was not derived from the PRESIDENT. -The gentleman now argued that the Secretary was blameable in not giving -information of the state of these extraordinary resources, which were -not within his department, when only called upon to state the amount of -the ordinary revenues, which were within his department. He left it to -the gentleman to reconcile this contradiction, for certainly his -doctrine was erroneous on the former occasion, or it must be so now. If -the moneys obtained from foreign loans were to be deemed the revenues of -the country, then they fell of course under the management of the Head -of the Treasury Department, and it was wrong in the gentleman to impute -misconduct to the Secretary for exercising a legal authority; if, on the -contrary, those moneys were viewed as an extra resource, and not within -the purview of the Secretary's functions, then it was wrong to censure -him for not communicating the state of those moneys, when required only -to report the ordinary revenues. - -But though the Secretary would not have been censurable for omitting to -give the information, the truth was, that the PRESIDENT's Speech of 8th -December, 1790, the Secretary's Report of 25th February, and the act of -the 3d of March, 1791, were conclusive proofs that the Legislature knew -that the proceeds of the loans were in a train of being brought to the -United States and the accounts of receipts and expenditures presented in -the first week of the session, informed the House that a large sum had -been drawn for, and the Treasurer's quarterly account contained further -information on the subject, all which was prior to any call of the House -for such information. Hence, Mr. S. deduced, that it was not a fact that -the Secretary had failed to give the information, as stated in the -resolution, and that had he even so failed, he would not have been -censurable for a breach of an essential duty of his office. It had been -said, by a member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. FINDLAY,) that the lateness of -the information from the Secretary made it inconvenient to go into an -inquiry of his official conduct so near the close of the session. To -this, Mr. S. replied, that he did not expect such a remark from that -quarter of the House. If the gentleman had not been prepared for the -inquiry, or thought it an improper season to enter upon it, why did he -second the motion for bringing forward the charges? If suspicion had so -long existed against the integrity of the Secretary, why was not -information called for at the beginning of the session? Why was the call -delayed till the session was within a few weeks of its termination? It -was admitted that the Secretary had obeyed the order of the House with -wonderful alacrity and promptitude. It was indeed strange that the -gentleman who brought forward the charges, should be the first to -complain that there was not time for their consideration. - -Mr. S. concluded by noticing the observation of Mr. MERCER and Mr. -MADISON, that the opinion of the House on the preceding resolutions -would not change the truth of facts, and that the public would -ultimately decide whether the Secretary's conduct was criminal or not. -This, said Mr. S., was like the conduct of a prosecutor, who, having -chosen his jurisdiction, and being nonsuited, wished to appeal to -another tribunal. Why were the resolutions brought before the House? Was -it not to substantiate the truth of them by a vote? And had the -prosecution succeeded, would the Secretary have had an appeal to the -public? No, the resolutions would have been sent to the PRESIDENT, and -the Secretary would have been removed, disgraced, and ruined for ever, -without appeal. - -The question was then taken, and it was resolved in the -affirmative--yeas 34, nays 7, as follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias - Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan - Dayton, William Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, - Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Thomas - Hartley, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Aaron Kitchell, - John Laurance, Amasa Learned, George Leonard, Samuel - Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Nathaniel Niles, - Josiah Parker, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, William - Smith, John Steele, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, - George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Artemas Ward, and - Hugh Williamson. - - NAYS.--John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, William B. - Giles, William Barry Grove, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel - Macon, and James Madison. - - -SATURDAY EVENING, March 2. - -A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate having -completed the Legislative business before them, are now about to -adjourn. - -_Resolved._ That Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. HINDMAN, be -appointed a committee jointly, with a committee on the part of the -Senate, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him -that Congress is ready to adjourn without day, unless he may have any -farther communications to make to them. - -A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have agreed -to the resolution of this House for the appointment of a joint -committee, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him -of the intended recess of Congress, and have appointed a committee for -that purpose, on their part. - -On a motion made and seconded, - -"That the thanks of the House of Representatives be presented to -JONATHAN TRUMBULL, in testimony of their approbation of his conduct in -the chair, and in the execution of the difficult and important trust -reposed in him, as SPEAKER of the said House," - -It was resolved unanimously: Whereupon, - -Mr. SPEAKER made his acknowledgments to the House, in manner following: - - "GENTLEMEN: You have made me very happy by this testimony - of your approbation of my conduct in the chair. I feel, at - the same time, an additional pleasure in the opportunity of - rendering to you my sincere acknowledgments for the kind - candor and indulgence, as well as the constant aid and - support, which I have experienced in the performance of the - duty which you were pleased to assign me. Be assured, - gentlemen, I shall ever retain a grateful sense of your - goodness; and you will suffer me to add, that my best - wishes for your welfare and happiness, in public and - private life, will attend each member of this honorable - body." - -Mr. BOUDINOT, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him of the intended recess of -Congress, reported that the committee had performed that duty, and that -the PRESIDENT was pleased to say he had no farther communication to make -during the present session: Whereupon, - -Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House _sine die_. - - - - -THIRD CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION. - -BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 2, 1793. - - -LIST OF MEMBERS. - -SENATORS. - -_New Hampshire._--S. Livermore, John Langdon. - -_Vermont._--S. R. Bradley, Moses Robinson. - -_Massachusetts._--George Cabot, Caleb Strong. - -_Rhode Island._--William Bradford, Theodore Foster. - -_Connecticut._--Oliver Ellsworth, S. M. Mitchell. - -_New York._--Aaron Burr, John S. Hobart. - -_New Jersey._--Philemon Dickinson, F. Frelinghuysen. - -_Pennsylvania._--Albert Gallatin, Robert Morris, James Ross. - -_Delaware._--John Vining, Kensey Johns. - -_Maryland._--John Henry, Richard Potts. - -_Virginia._--James Monroe, John Taylor, Stevens T. Mason. - -_North Carolina._--Benjamin Hawkins, Alexander Martin. - -_South Carolina._--Pierce Butler, Ralph Izard. - -_Georgia._--William Few, James Jackson. - -_Kentucky._--John Browne, John Edwards. - -REPRESENTATIVES. - -_New Hampshire._--Nicholas Gilman, J. S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, -Paine Wingate. - -_Vermont._--Nathaniel Niles, Israel Smith. - -_Massachusetts._--Fisher Ames, S. Bourne, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, -Henry Dearborn, Samuel Dexter, Dwight Foster, Benjamin Goodhue, Samuel -Holten, William Lyman, T. Sedgwick, George Thatcher, P. Wadsworth, -Artemas Ward. - -_Rhode Island._--Benjamin Bourne, Francis Malbone. - -_Connecticut._--Joshua Coit, James Hillhouse, Amasa Learned, Zephaniah -Swift, Uriah Tracy, J. Trumbull, Jeremiah Wadsworth. - -_New York._--Theodorus Bailey, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, James -Gordon, Silas Talbot, T. Tredwell, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van -Cortlandt, Peter Van Gaasbeck, John Watts. - -_New Jersey._--John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, Lambert Cadwalader, Jonathan -Dayton, Aaron Kitchell. - -_Pennsylvania._--James Armstrong, William Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, -Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, William Irvine, William -Montgomery, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Peter Muhlenberg, Thomas Scott, -John Smilie, John Wilkes Kittera. - -_Delaware._--Henry Latimer. - -_Maryland._--Gabriel Christie, George Dent, Uriah Forrest, William -Hindman, John F. Mercer, Samuel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, William Vans -Murray. - -_Virginia._--Thomas Claiborne, Isaac Coles, William B. Giles, Samuel -Griffin, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, Richard Bland -Lee, Andrew Moore, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John Nicholas, John -Page, Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, A. B. Venable, Francis Walker. - -_North Carolina._--Thomas Blount, William J. Dawson, James Gillespie, -William B. Grove, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph McDowell, -Alexander Mebane, Benjamin Williams, Joseph Winston. - -_South Carolina._--Lemuel Benton, Alexander Gillon, John Hunter, Andrew -Pickens, William Smith, Richard Winn. - -_Georgia._--A. Baldwin, Thomas P. Carnes. - -_Kentucky._--Christopher Greenup, Alexander D. Orr. - -_Tennessee._--James White. - - -PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE. - - -MONDAY, December 2, 1793. - -This being the day fixed by the constitution for the annual meeting of -Congress, the following members of the Senate appeared, produced their -credentials, and took their seats. - -JOHN ADAMS, Vice President of the United States and President of the -Senate. - -JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire. - -GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts. - -OLIVER ELLSWORTH, from Connecticut. - -MOSES ROBINSON, from Vermont. - -AARON BURR, from New York. - -JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey. - -ROBERT MORRIS and ALBERT GALLATIN, from Pennsylvania. - -JAMES MONROE, from Virginia. - -JOHN EDWARDS, from Kentucky. - -BENJAMIN HAWKINS, from North Carolina. - -RALPH IZARD, from South Carolina. - -Mr. LANGDON, the President of the Senate _pro tempore_, administered the -oath required by law to the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. - -The Secretary read the credentials of the following Senators appointed -for the terms respectively mentioned therein. - -PIERCE BUTLER, from South Carolina. - -ALEXANDER MARTIN, from North Carolina. - -JOHN VINING, from Delaware. - -The VICE PRESIDENT administered the oath required by law to Mr. BUTLER, -Mr. GALLATIN, and Mr. MARTIN, respectively, and they took their seats. - -STEPHEN MIX MITCHELL, appointed by the State of Connecticut a Senator -for two years, in the place of ROGER SHERMAN, deceased, produced his -credentials, which being read, the VICE PRESIDENT administered to him -the oath required by law, and he took his seat. - -The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the petition of Conrad Laub -and others, relative to the appointment of Mr. GALLATIN, a Senator of -the United States; which was read and ordered to lie on the table. - -The VICE PRESIDENT also communicated a letter from GEORGE READ, of -Delaware, resigning his seat in the Senate; which was read, and ordered -to lie on the table. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that -a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to business. - -_Ordered_, that Messrs. IZARD and LANGDON be a joint committee on the -part of the Senate, together with such committee as the House of -Representatives may appoint, on their part, 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 communications that he may be -pleased to make to them. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the -House had elected FREDERICK A. MUHLENBERG their Speaker, and that they -have concurred with the Senate in appointing a joint committee to wait -on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. - -Mr. IZARD, from the joint committee who had waited on the PRESIDENT, -reported that the PRESIDENT would meet the two Houses to-morrow, at 12 -o'clock, in the Senate Chamber. - - -TUESDAY, December 3. - -The two Houses being assembled in the Senate Chamber, the PRESIDENT OF -THE UNITED STATES entered, and addressed the two Houses of Congress as -follows: - - _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - Since the commencement of the term for which I have been - again called into office, no fit occasion has arisen for - expressing to my fellow-citizens at large the deep and - respectful sense which I feel of the renewed testimony of - public approbation. While, on the one hand, it awakened my - gratitude for all those instances of affectionate - partiality with which I have been honored by my country, on - the other, it could not prevent an earnest wish for that - retirement from which no private consideration should ever - have torn me. But, influenced by the belief that my conduct - would be estimated according to its real motives, and that - the people, and the authorities derived from them, would - support exertions having nothing personal for their object, - I have obeyed the suffrage which commanded me to resume the - Executive power, and I humbly implore that Being on whose - will the fate of nations depends, to crown with success our - mutual endeavors for the general happiness. - - As soon as the war in Europe had embraced those Powers with - whom the United States have the most extensive relations, - there was reason to apprehend that our intercourse with - them might be interrupted, and our disposition for peace - drawn into question by the suspicions too often entertained - by belligerent nations. It seemed, therefore, to be my duty - to admonish our citizens of the consequences of a - contraband trade, and of hostile acts to any of the - parties, and to obtain, by a declaration of the existing - legal state of things, an easier admission of our right to - the immunities belonging to our situation. Under these - impressions the Proclamation which will be laid before you - was issued. - - In this posture of affairs, both new and delicate, I - resolved to adopt general rules, which should conform to - the treaties and assert the privileges of the United - States. These were reduced into a system, which will be - communicated to you. Although I have not thought myself at - liberty to forbid the sale of the prizes permitted by our - treaty of commerce with France to be brought into our - ports, I have not refused to cause them to be restored when - they were taken within the protection of our territory, or - by vessels commissioned or equipped in a warlike form - within the limits of the United States. - - It rests with the wisdom of Congress to correct, improve, - or enforce this plan of procedure; and it will probably be - found expedient to extend the legal code and the - jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States to many - cases which, though dependent on principles already - recognized, demand some further provisions. - - Where individuals shall, within the United States, array - themselves in hostility against any of the Powers at war, - or enter upon military expeditions or enterprises within - the jurisdiction of the United States; or usurp and - exercise judicial authority within the United States; or - where the penalties on violations of the law of nations may - have been indistinctly marked, or are inadequate--these - offences cannot receive too early and close an attention, - and require prompt and decisive remedies. - - Whatsoever those remedies may be, they will be well - administered by the Judiciary, who possess a - long-established course of investigation, effectual - process, and officers in the habit of executing it. - - In like manner, as several of the courts have doubted, - under particular circumstances, their power to liberate the - vessels of a nation at peace, and even of a citizen of the - United States, although seized under a false color of being - hostile property, and have denied their power to liberate - certain captures within the protection of our territory, it - would seem proper to regulate their jurisdiction in these - points; but, if the Executive is to be the resort in either - of the two last-mentioned cases, it is hoped that he will - be authorized by law to have facts ascertained by the - courts, when, for his own information, he shall request it. - - The connection of the United States with Europe has become - extremely interesting. The occurrences which relate to it - and have passed under the knowledge of the Executive, will - be exhibited to Congress in a subsequent communication. - - When we contemplate the war on our frontiers, it may be - truly affirmed that every reasonable effort has been made - to adjust the causes of dissension with the Indians north - of the Ohio. The instructions given to the Commissioners - evince a moderation and equity proceeding from a sincere - love of peace and a liberality having no restriction but - the essential interests and dignity of the United States. - The attempt, however, of an amicable negotiation having - been frustrated, the troops have marched to act - offensively. Although the proposed treaty did not arrest - the progress of military preparation, it is doubtful how - far the advance of the season, before good faith justified - active movements, may retard them, during the remainder of - the year. From the papers and intelligence which relate to - this important subject, you will determine whether the - deficiency in the number of troops granted by law shall be - compensated by succors of militia, or additional - encouragements shall be proposed to recruits. - - An anxiety has been also demonstrated by the Executive for - peace with the Creeks and the Cherokees. The former have - been relieved with corn and with clothing, and offensive - measures against them prohibited during the recess of - Congress. To satisfy the complaints of the latter, - prosecutions have been instituted for the violence - committed upon them. But the papers which will be delivered - to you, disclose the critical footing on which we stand in - regard to both those tribes, and it is with Congress to - pronounce what shall be done. - - _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_ - - The productiveness of the public revenues hitherto has - continued to equal the anticipations which were formed of - it, but it is not expected to prove commensurate with all - the objects which have been suggested. Some auxiliary - provisions will, therefore, it is presumed, be requisite; - and it is hoped that these may be made consistently with a - due regard to the convenience of our citizens, who cannot - but be sensible of the true wisdom of encountering a small - present addition to their contributions, to obviate a - future accumulation of burdens. - - But here I cannot forbear to recommend a repeal of the tax - on the transportation of public prints. There is no - resource so firm for the Government of the United States as - the affections of the people, guided by an enlightened - policy; and to this primary good nothing can conduce more - than a faithful representation of public proceedings, - diffused without restraint, throughout the United States. - - An estimate of the appropriations necessary for the current - service of the ensuing year, and a statement of a purchase - of arms and military stores, made during the recess, will - be presented to Congress. - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - The several subjects to which I have now referred open a - wide range to your deliberations, and involve some of the - choicest interests of our common country. Permit me to - bring to your remembrance the magnitude of your task. - Without an unprejudiced coolness, the welfare of the - Government may be hazarded; without harmony, as far as - consists with freedom of sentiment, its dignity may be - lost. But, as the Legislative proceedings of the United - States will never, I trust, be reproached for the want of - temper or of candor, so shall not the public happiness - languish from the want of my strenuous and warmest - co-operation. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - PHILADELPHIA, _December_ 3, 1793. - -The PRESIDENT having retired, the two Houses separated. - -On motion, a committee of five was appointed to report the draft of an -Address to the PRESIDENT, in answer to his Speech to both Houses. - -Messrs. ELLSWORTH, BUTLER, IZARD, LANGDON, and RUTHERFORD, were named. - - -THURSDAY, December 5. - -The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - As the present situation of the several nations of Europe, - and especially of those with which the United States have - important relations, cannot but render the state of things - between them and us matter of interesting inquiry to the - Legislature, and may indeed give rise to deliberations to - which they alone are competent, I have thought it my duty - to communicate to them certain correspondences which, have - taken place. - - The Representative and Executive bodies of France have - manifested generally a friendly attachment to this country, - have given advantages to our commerce and navigation, and - have made overtures for placing these advantages on - permanent ground. A decree, however, of the National - Assembly, subjecting vessels laden with provisions to be - carried into their ports, and making enemy goods lawful - prize in the vessel of a friend, contrary to our Treaty, - though revoked at one time as to the United States, has - been since extended to their vessels also, as has been - recently stated to us. Representations on this subject will - be immediately given in charge to our Minister there, and - the result shall be communicated to the Legislature. - - It is with extreme concern I have to inform you that the - proceedings of the person whom they have unfortunately - appointed their Minister Plenipotentiary here have breathed - nothing of the friendly spirit of the nation which sent - him; their tendency, on the contrary, has been to involve - us in war abroad and discord and anarchy at home. So far as - his acts, or those of his agents, have threatened our - immediate commitment in the war, or flagrant insult to the - authority of the laws, their effect has been counteracted - by the ordinary cognizance of the laws, and by an exertion - of the powers confided to me. Where their danger was not - imminent, they have been borne with, from sentiments of - regard to his nation, from a sense of their friendship - towards us, from a conviction that they would not suffer us - to remain long exposed to the action of a person who has so - little respected our mutual dispositions, and, I will add, - from a reliance on the firmness of my fellow-citizens in - their principles of peace and order. In the mean time, I - have respected and pursued the stipulations of our - treaties, according to what I judged their true sense, and - have withheld no act of friendship which their affairs have - called for from us, and which justice to others left us - free to perform. I have gone further: rather than employ - force for the restitution of certain vessels which I deemed - the United States bound to restore, I thought it more - advisable to satisfy the parties by avowing it to be my - opinion that, if restitution were not made, it would be - incumbent on the United States to make compensation. The - papers now communicated will more particularly apprise you - of these transactions. - - The vexations and spoliation understood to have been - committed on our vessels and commerce by the cruisers and - officers of some of the belligerent Powers, appeared to - require attention. The proofs of these, however, not having - been brought forward, the descriptions of citizens supposed - to have suffered were notified that, on furnishing them to - the Executive, due measures would be taken to obtain - redress of the past, and more effectual provisions against - the future. Should such documents be furnished, proper - representations will be made thereon, with a just reliance - on a redress proportioned to the exigency of the case. - - The British Government having undertaken, by orders to the - commanders of their armed vessels, to restrain generally - our commerce in corn and other provisions to their own - ports, and those of their friends, the instructions now - communicated were immediately forwarded to our Minister at - that Court. In the mean time, some discussions on the - subject took place between him and them. These are also - laid before you, and I may expect to learn the result of - his special instructions in time to make it known to the - Legislature during their present session. - - Very early after the arrival of a British Minister here - mutual explanations on the inexecution of the Treaty of - Peace were entered into with that Minister. These are now - laid before you for your information. - - On the subjects of mutual interest between this country and - Spain, negotiations and conferences are now depending. The - public good requiring that the present state of these - should be made known to the Legislature _in confidence - only_, they shall be the subject of a separate and - subsequent communication. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _December 5, 1793._ - - -FRIDAY, December 6. - -Mr. ELLSWORTH, from the committee appointed to report the draft of an -Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, made a report; which was -read, and ordered for consideration on Monday next. - - -MONDAY, December 9. - -Messrs. STEPHEN R. BRADLEY, from Vermont, THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode -Island, and RUFUS KING, from New York, appeared and took their seats. - -Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate took into consideration -the draft of an Address reported by the committee in answer to the -Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to Congress at the opening -of the session; which, being amended, and the several paragraphs of the -report agreed to, it was adopted, as follows: - - "_To the President of the United States:_ - - "Accept, sir, the thanks of the Senate for your Speech - delivered to both Houses of Congress at the opening of the - session. Your re-election to the Chief Magistracy of the - United States gives us sincere pleasure. We consider it as - an event every way propitious to the happiness of our - country; and your compliance with the call, as a fresh - instance of the patriotism which has so repeatedly led you - to sacrifice private inclination to the public good. In the - unanimity which a second time marks this important national - act, we trace, with particular satisfaction, besides the - distinguished tribute paid to the virtues and abilities - which it recognizes, another proof of that just discernment - and constancy of sentiments and views which have hitherto - characterized the citizens of the United States. - - "As the European Powers with whom the United States have - the most extensive relations were involved in war, in which - we had taken no part, it seemed necessary that the - disposition of the nation for peace should be promulgated - to the world, as well for the purpose of admonishing our - citizens of the consequences of a contraband trade and of - acts hostile to any of the belligerent parties, as to - obtain, by a declaration of the existing legal state of - things, an easier admission of our right to the immunities - of our situation; we, therefore, contemplate with pleasure - the Proclamation, by you issued, and give it our hearty - approbation. We deem it a measure well-timed and wise, - manifesting a watchful solicitude for the welfare of the - nation, and calculated to promote it. - - "The several important matters presented to our - consideration will, in the course of the session, engage - all the attention to which they are respectively entitled; - and, as the public happiness will be the sole guide of our - deliberations, we are perfectly assured of receiving your - strenuous and most zealous co-operation. - - "JOHN ADAMS, - - "_Vice President of the United States, - and President of the Senate._" - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. ELLSWORTH and BUTLER wait on the PRESIDENT OF -THE UNITED STATES, and desire him to acquaint the Senate at what time -and place it will be most convenient for him that the foregoing Address -should be presented. - - -TUESDAY, December 10. - -JOHN BROWN, from the State of Kentucky, attended to-day. - -Mr. ELLSWORTH reported, from the committee appointed yesterday to wait -on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, that the PRESIDENT proposed to -receive the Address of the Senate this day, at 12 o'clock, at his own -house. Whereupon, the Senate waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES, and the VICE PRESIDENT, in their name, presented the Address -agreed to on the ninth instant. To this Address the PRESIDENT OF THE -UNITED STATES was pleased to make the following Reply: - - "GENTLEMEN: The pleasure expressed by the Senate on my - re-election to the station which I fill, commands my - sincere and warmest acknowledgments. If this be an event - which promises the smallest addition to the happiness of - our country, as it is my duty, so shall it be my study, to - realize the expectation. - - "The decided approbation which, the Proclamation now - receives from your House, by completing the proofs that - this measure is considered as manifesting a vigilant - attention to the welfare of the United States, brings with - it a peculiar gratification to my mind. - - "The other important subjects which have been communicated - to you will, I am confident, receive a due discussion; and - the result will, I trust, prove fortunate to the United - States. - - "G. WASHINGTON." - -The Senate then returned to their Chamber, and resumed the reading of -the papers communicated in the message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES of the 5th instant, but adjourned before they were got through. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 11. - -CALEB STRONG, from Massachusetts, attended to-day. - -The credentials of Mr. BROWN and Mr. STRONG were read, the usual oath -administered to them, and they took their seats. - - -FRIDAY, December 13. - -WILLIAM BRADFORD, from Rhode Island, and JOHN TAYLOR, from Virginia, -attended, produced their credentials, and took the usual oath and their -seats. - - -MONDAY, December 16. - -JAMES JACKSON, from Georgia, attended, produced his credentials, and, -the oath required by law being administered to him, he took his seat in -the Senate. - - -TUESDAY, December 17. - -JOHN VINING, from Delaware, appeared, and, the oath required by law -being, by the VICE PRESIDENT, administered to him, he took his seat in -the Senate. - - -TUESDAY, December 24. - -_Exclusion of Bank Officers and Stockholders from Congress._ - -The following motion was made and seconded, to wit: That the -constitution be amended by adding, at the end of the ninth section of -the first article, the following clause: - - "Nor shall any person holding any office or stock in any - institution in the nature of a bank for issuing or - discounting bills or notes payable to bearer or order, - under the authority of the United States, be a member of - either House whilst he holds such office or stock, but no - power to grant any charter of incorporation, or any - commercial or other monopoly, shall be herein implied." - -And it was agreed that this motion should lie for consideration. - - -TUESDAY, December 31. - -Mr. RUTHERFORD reported, from the committee to whom was referred the -petition of Conrad Laub and others, stating that the Hon. ALBERT -GALLATIN, at the time he was elected a Senator of the United States, had -not been nine years a citizen of the said United States as is required -by the constitution; which report was read, and ordered to lie for -consideration. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 1, 1794. - -The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the report of the committee -to whom was referred the petition of Conrad Laub and others. - -On motion to postpone the consideration of the report until to-morrow, -it was agreed to amend this motion, by striking out the words -"to-morrow," and to insert, in lieu thereof, "Thursday, the 9th -instant." - - -THURSDAY, January 2. - -A motion was made that it be-- - - "_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of - the United States of America in Congress assembled, - two-thirds of both Houses concurring_, That the following - article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several - States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United - States; which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said - Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the said - constitution, to wit: - - "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be - construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced - or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens - of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign - State." - - -MONDAY, January 13. - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the petition of Conrad Laub and -others, respecting the appointment of Mr. GALLATIN to be a Senator of -the United States. - -On motion, - -_Ordered_, That a Committee of Elections, to consist of seven, be -appointed, and that the petition of Conrad Laub and others be referred, -without prejudice as to any questions which may, upon the hearing, be -raised by the sitting member, as to the sufficiency of the parties and -the matter charged in the petition, to the same committee, to state the -facts, and that they be authorized to send for persons, and papers; -also, that Messrs. BRADLEY, ELLSWORTH, MITCHELL, RUTHERFORD, BROWN, -LIVERMORE, and TAYLOR, be this committee. - - -TUESDAY, January 14. - -Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate took into consideration -the motion made yesterday for an amendment to the Constitution of the -United States, respecting the Judicial power thereof. - -And, on the question to agree to the resolution as follows: - - "_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of - the United States of America in Congress assembled, - two-thirds of both Houses concurring_, That the following - article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several - States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United - States; which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said - Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the said - constitution, to wit; - - "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be - construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced - or prosecuted against one of the United States, by citizens - of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign - State:" - -It passed in the affirmative--yeas 23, nays 2, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bradford, Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, - Cabot, Edwards, Ellsworth, Foster, Frelinghuysen, Hawkins, - Jackson, Izard, King, Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Mitchell, - Monroe, Robinson, Strong, Taylor, and Vining. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Gallatin and Rutherford. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary desire the concurrence of the House of -Representatives in this resolution. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 15. - -_Exclusion of Bank Officers from a seat in Congress._ - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday for an -amendment to the Constitution of the United States, inhibiting the -holders of any office or stock in the Bank of the United States from a -seat in either House of Congress. - -On motion to amend the motion, to be read as follows: - - "Nor shall any person holding any office in any institution - in the nature of a bank, under the authority of the United - States be a member of either House whilst he holds such - office; but no power to grant any charter of incorporation, - or any commercial or other monopoly, shall be hereby - implied." - -And, after debate, the further consideration thereof was postponed until -to-morrow. - - -THURSDAY, January 16. - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday, to -amend the motion under consideration the 14th instant, for an amendment -to the Constitution of the United States, inhibiting the holders of any -office or stock in the Bank of the United States from a seat in either -House of Congress. - -On motion to amend the amendment, so that it be read as follows: - - "Nor shall any person holding any office in the Bank of the - United States be a member of either House whilst he holds - such office; but no power to grant any charter of - incorporation, or any commercial or other monopoly shall be - hereby implied:" - -It passed in the affirmative--yeas 13, nays 12, as follows - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, - Gallatin, Hawkins, Jackson, Izard, Martin, Monroe, - Robinson, and Taylor. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, - Frelinghuysen, King, Langdon, Livermore, Mitchell, Morris, - Strong, and Vining. - -On motion it was agreed to expunge the following clause of the motion -last adopted: - - "But no power to grant any charter of incorporation, or any - commercial or other monopoly, shall be hereby implied:" - and, - -On the question, to agree to the motion, amended as follows: - - "Nor shall any person holding any office in the Bank of the - United States be a member of either House, whilst he holds - such office:" - -It passed in the negative--yeas 12, nays 13, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, - Gallatin, Hawkins, Jackson, Martin, Monroe, Robinson, and - Taylor. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, - Frelinghuysen, Izard, King, Langdon, Livermore, Mitchell, - Morris, Strong, and Vining. - -Agreeably to notice given, Mr. BUTLER obtained leave to bring in a bill -to amend the act, entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the -Bank of the United States;" which was read the first time. - -On motion that this bill have a second reading, in the words following, -to wit: - - "Whereas it is inexpedient that the Government of the - United States should continue to hold any stock in the Bank - of the United States, or have any political connection with - the said bank, or any other connection with it, otherwise - than in common with other banks within the United States:" - - [The bill directs the sale of the United States stock in - the bank, and repeals all the clauses in the charter - establishing any connection with it:] - -It passed in the negative--yeas 12, nays 13, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, - Gallatin, Hawkins, Jackson, Martin, Monroe, Robinson, and - Taylor. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, - Frelinghuysen, Izard, King, Langdon, Livermore, Mitchell, - Morris, Strong, and Vining. - - -TUESDAY, January 21. - -The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - Having already laid before you a letter of the 16th of - August, 1793, from the Secretary of State to our Minister - at Paris, stating the conduct and urging the recall, of the - Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of France, I now - communicate to you, that his conduct has been unequivocally - disapproved; and that the strongest assurances have been - given, that his recall should be expedited without delay. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _January 20, 1794._ - -The Message was read, and ordered to lie on file. - -The memorial of the people called Quakers, from the yearly meeting held -at Rhode Island for New England, in the year 1793, was presented and -read, praying Congress to exercise the authority vested in them by the -constitution for the suppression of the slave trade. - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. BRADLEY, LIVERMORE, and BROWN, be a committee to -take into consideration the laws passed in the territory of the United -States north-west of the river Ohio, from July to December, 1792, -inclusive, and report thereon to the Senate. - - -THURSDAY, January 30. - -The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - Communications have been made to Congress during the - present session, with the intention of affording a full - view of the posture of affairs on the south-western - frontiers. By the information which has lately been laid - before Congress, it appeared that the difficulties with the - Creeks had been amicably and happily terminated. But it - will be perceived with regret, by the papers herewith - transmitted, that the tranquillity has unfortunately been - of short duration, owing to the murder of several friendly - Indians, by some lawless white men. - - The condition of things in that quarter requires the - serious and immediate consideration of Congress, and the - adoption of such wise and vigorous laws as will be - competent to the preservation of the national character and - of the peace made under the authority of the United States - with the several Indian tribes. Experience demonstrates - that the existing legal provisions are entirely inadequate - to those great objects. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _January 30, 1794._ - - -TUESDAY, February 4. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the -House have passed a bill entitled "An act providing for the relief of -such of the inhabitants of Saint Domingo resident within the United -States as may be found in want of support," in which they desire the -concurrence of the Senate. - -This bill was read the first time, and ordered to a second reading. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 5. - -The bill, sent from the House of Representatives for concurrence, -entitled "An act providing for the relief of such of the inhabitants of -Saint Domingo, resident within the United States, as may be found in -want of support," was read the second time; and, after debate, the -further consideration thereof was postponed until to-morrow. - - -THURSDAY, February 6. - -Mr. POTTS, from Maryland, attended. - -The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill sent from the House of -Representatives for concurrence, entitled "An act providing for the -relief of such of the inhabitants of Saint Domingo, resident within the -United States, as may be found in want of support." - -On motion, that it be recommitted, for the purpose of further inquiry, -it passed in the negative. - -And after agreeing to an amendment, the bill was ordered to a third -reading. - - -FRIDAY, February 7. - -The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:_ - - I transmit to you an Act and three Ordinances, passed by - the Government of the territory of the United States south - of the river Ohio, on the 13th and 21st of March, and the - 7th of May, 1793; and also certain letters from the - Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republic, to the - Secretary of State, enclosing despatches from the General - and Extraordinary Commission of Guadaloupe. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _February 7, 1794._ - -The Message and papers therein referred to were read. - -_Ordered_, That the act and three ordinances, mentioned in the Message, -be referred to the committee appointed 21st of January last, to whom -were referred the laws passed in the territory north-west of the Ohio, -to consider and report thereon to the Senate. - -_Ordered_, That the other papers referred to in the Message lie for -consideration. - -The Senate proceeded to the third reading of the bill, sent from the -House of Representatives for concurrence, entitled "An act providing for -the relief of such of the inhabitants of Saint Domingo, resident within -the United States, as may be found in want of support." Whereupon, - -_Resolved_, That this bill pass as amended. - - -MONDAY, February 10. - -The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary of -the Department of the Treasury, in reference to the orders of Senate of -the 20th January last, for a return of sundry statements from that -department; which letter was read. - -Mr. BRADLEY reported from the committee to whom was referred the -petition of Conrad Laub and others, respecting the appointment of Mr. -GALLATIN to be a Senator of the United States; and the report was read. - -_Ordered_, That Wednesday next be assigned to take this report into -consideration, and that, in the mean time, it be printed for the use of -the Senate. - -On motion, that the Senate adopt the following resolution: - - "_Resolved_, That the doors of the Senate be opened, and - continue open, during the discussion upon the contested - election of ALBERT GALLATIN:" - -_Ordered_, That this motion lie on the table until to-morrow. - - -TUESDAY, February 11. - -Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate took into consideration -the motion made yesterday that the doors of the Senate be opened during -the discussion of the contested election of Mr. GALLATIN. Whereupon, - -_Resolved_, That the doors of the Senate be opened, and continue open, -during the discussion upon the contested election of ALBERT GALLATIN. - -Mr. BRADLEY reported from the committee to whom was referred the act and -three ordinances mentioned in the Message from the PRESIDENT OF THE -UNITED STATES of the 7th instant, enacted and ordained by the Governor -and judges of the territory south of the river Ohio, "that Congress do -not disapprove the same," and the report was agreed to. - - -THURSDAY, February 13. - -Mr. BURR, from the committee to whom was referred the Message from the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the 30th of December last, reported a -bill authorizing and directing the settlement of the accounts of Major -General LAFAYETTE; which was read the first time, and ordered to a -second reading. - - -FRIDAY, February 14. - -The bill authorizing and directing the settlement of the accounts of -Major General LAFAYETTE was read the second time, and, after debate, it -was ordered to lie for consideration and inquiry. - - -MONDAY, February 17. - -The petition of Michael Schmyser, agent for Conrad Laub and others, -petitioners against the election of ALBERT GALLATIN to be a Senator of -the United States, was presented and read, praying to be heard by -counsel. - -_Ordered_, That the prayer of the petition be granted. - -The consideration of the report of the committee on the petition of -Conrad Laub and others, respecting the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a -Senator of the United States, was resumed, and after progress, it was -ordered that the consideration thereof be postponed until Wednesday -next. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 19. - -JAMES GUNN, from Georgia, took his seat in the Senate. - - -THURSDAY, February 20. - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday, to -amend the motion then reconsidered, respecting the opening the doors of -the Senate Chamber whilst sitting in a Legislative capacity. - -On motion to commit the motion for amendment, it passed in the negative. - -On motion, that the amendment be agreed to, it passed in the -affirmative--yeas 18, nays 9, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, - Ellsworth, Foster, Gunn, Hawkins, Jackson, King, Langdon, - Livermore, Martin, Monroe, Potts, Taylor, and Vining. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Frelinghuysen, Gallatin, - Izard, Mitchell, Morris, Rutherford, and Strong. - -On motion to adopt the resolution, amended as follows: - - "_Resolved_, That, after the end of the present session of - Congress, and so soon as suitable galleries shall be - provided for the Senate Chamber, the said galleries shall - be permitted to be opened every morning, so long as the - Senate shall be engaged in their Legislative capacity, - unless in such cases as may, in the opinion of the Senate, - require secrecy, after which the said galleries shall be - closed:" - -It passed in the affirmative--yeas 19, nays 8, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, - Ellsworth, Foster, Gallatin, Gunn, Hawkins, Jackson, King, - Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Monroe, Potts, Taylor, and - Vining. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Frelinghuysen, Izard, - Mitchell, Morris, Rutherford, and Strong. - -_Contested Election._ - -Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate resumed the consideration -of the report of the committee on the petition of Conrad Laub, and -others, respecting the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a Senator of the -United States. - -The report of the committee states the evidence, and concludes with an -opinion, that to controvert the allegations set forth in the petition -against Mr. G., it lays with him to prove his citizenship. - -Accordingly, Mr. G. presented a written statement of facts which the -PRESIDENT of the Senate read. It contained a narrative of several -transactions from the time of Mr. G.'s arrival in the province of Maine, -or Massachusetts, about thirteen years ago. Of his having contributed by -money and his own services as a volunteer, in the cause of the -revolution. Of his having taken oaths of allegiance and purchased lands -in that State, and also in the State of Virginia. In the back parts of -the last-mentioned State, he had formed an interesting settlement, and -had been extremely useful in bringing settlers from Europe. The dates of -those transactions and times of his arrival in Pennsylvania, and of -being sent to the State Convention, are also recited, up to the time of -his being chosen one of their Representatives in the Senate of the -United States. - -After the PRESIDENT had done reading the statement of facts, Mr. G. -addressed the Senate, by observing, that he felt himself rather in an -awkward predicament, not knowing whether the counsel for the prosecutors -or himself were the proper person to speak the first, as this -preliminary was not yet laid down by the Senate, neither had he provided -any counsel. He should have supposed himself in the situation of -defendant, were it not that the weight of proving the affirmative in -regard to citizenship had been laid on him, under which predicament it -might perhaps be necessary for him to begin, and after the counsel for -the petitioners had spoken, that he should then be allowed to close the -arguments. - -Mr. LIVERMORE was of opinion, that the sitting member should begin to -debate, as the _onus probandi_ lay with him. - -The counsel for the petitioners, Mr. LEWIS, rose. He was attended by Mr. -Schmyser, one of the members of the Senate of Pennsylvania, who, we -understand, manages the prosecution on the part of the petitioners. Mr. -L. hoped he would be permitted to say a few words in the early stage of -the business, in regard to the manner of conducting it. He recapitulated -sundry offices and posts of honor that had been conferred on him, from -which he humbly presumed he had gathered much experience, and -particularly in cases of contested elections. He would, therefore, beg -leave of the honorable Senate, to offer an observation before they -should determine on the mode of conducting the trial. When the question -for postponement, which was debated the other day, was before them, the -sitting member did then consider himself as defendant, and for an hour -had fought phantoms of his own imagination, but now he has changed his -ground, and desires to have the privileges which belong to the -petitioners only, namely, the right of opening the prosecution, and -afterwards concluding the arguments. - -Mr. GALLATIN submitted to the decision of the Senate, and said he did -not wish to contend for mere matters of form. - -Mr. MARTIN (from N. Carolina) thought it immaterial who began or -concluded, if in the end the Senate should be enabled to arrive at a -just degree of information. - -Mr. JACKSON (from Georgia) made some observations on the manner of -conducting the business. He thought it would be incumbent on the counsel -for the petitioners to prove that Mr. GALLATIN was not a citizen, &c. - -Mr. KING (from New York) and some other gentleman of the Senate, said a -few more words on the motion; it was agreed that the sitting member -should begin. - -Mr. GALLATIN accordingly rose and recapitulated the facts stated in the -written paper which he had presented to the PRESIDENT, commenting on -each of them as he proceeded. He proved that he had been an inhabitant -of the United States for thirteen years, and was one before the peace of -1783, and before the Confederation. He quoted the laws previous thereto -respecting aliens, and also the British statutes, and he maintained that -they were all done away by the Revolution. He conceived himself a -citizen in common with the other citizens of the United States, from the -time of his first qualifying after his arrival and attachment to the -country. He concluded by saying, he would reserve the remainder of his -defence until after he should hear the counsel on behalf of the -petitioners. - -Mr. Lewis commenced his speech by observing, that he appeared there on -behalf of Conrad Laub, and other respectable men, who complained of the -unconstitutionality of admitting Mr. GALLATIN to a seat in the Senate. -He was glad to find, by the gentleman's expressions, that the ground of -debate had been narrowed into so small a compass, and he would therefore -take him up from the argument where he had left off speaking, that of -his being a citizen in common of the United States, from the time of his -qualifying in Massachusetts or Virginia. But in Virginia two oaths are -required, and they must be taken in a court, not before a magistrate, to -entitle a man to citizenship. He must also be possessed of a certain -quantity of property and be a resident for two years. It appears Mr. G. -did not remain in Virginia more than two months. (Here Mr. Lewis read -the law of Virginia of the 20th October, 1783.) On this law Mr. L. -argued that Mr. G. had not gone through the necessary qualifications to -entitle him to citizenship there; and he observed, that he admired the -gentleman's candor in not insisting on it here. In this State he had -certainly not qualified himself agreeably to the law. Under these -circumstances, Mr. L. for his part could never admit of the gentleman's -right to citizenship so far back as to entitle him to the suffrage of a -vote for a seat in the Senate, &c. - -The mischievous consequences of permitting such innovations, he -represented in strong terms; and he called to the recollection of the -Senate, the conduct of ancient and modern governments on this question. -One of the ancient republics made it death for an alien to intermeddle -in their politics. The sentiments of antiquity, and those of men in -modern days, proved the justice of these conclusions. - -With regard to the arguments of the gentleman respecting his being -entitled to be a citizen of the Union, or any individual State of it, -because he had qualified himself to be citizen of one of them, Mr. L. -said, was a mere bubble, for surely the gentleman was not one of the -mass of citizens at the accomplishment of independence. - -The doctrine of the old law, which the gentleman says was done away by -the Revolution, in respect to aliens, may have been so with regard to -the British King; it was still, however, virtually in force against the -gentleman. But supposing it to be done away, how do the constitutions of -the different States stand on this head? Is it not implied by all of -them, that certain oaths, residence, and property, make the requisites -to form citizenship? In Massachusetts a foreigner is not a citizen, -without he complies with those terms. [Here he quoted p. 70 of the small -volume of the Laws of Massachusetts. He also cited the act in favor of -John Jarvis and others; also, p. 104 of the same book, and p. 191 and -192.] From these he maintained, that no such wild idea was ever -contemplated by either the law of Massachusetts or Virginia, as to admit -foreigners or persons from other States to citizenship, immediately on -their entrance within their limits. - -The situation of the sitting member, with respect to the constitution -and laws of Pennsylvania, he had little doubt was similar to what he had -mentioned in regard to the other States, although he would not assert it -as a fact. [He read the 42d section, and also in p. 43 of the Law of -Pennsylvania, 13th March, 1789, a proviso which contains some -precautions requiring records to be kept by the master of the rolls of -the persons admitted to citizenship.] The same principle pervades all -the States as well as it does the Constitution of the United States. The -absurdity of applying it in any other sense, was severely pictured by -Mr. L., and to admit the idea advanced by the sitting member, was as -inadmissible as it was novel. In support of what he wished to impress on -the minds of the Senate, Mr. L. quoted the 1st vol. of the Journals of -Congress in 1774 and 1775, pp. 28 and 29. He then recurred to -_Blackstone_, vol. I, pp. 63, 64, and 69; also 73 and 79. - -It was not his intention to quote the Parliamentary Laws of England in -support of any thing, but such parts of their Common Law as could be got -over--that Common Law of England which was imported by our ancestors, -and handed down to them by the people, not the Parliament. The people -had made the Common Law, from time to time. The Saxons, Normans, &c, -were all concerned in making and improving it, until it had finally -reached that degree of perfection in which it was given to us by our -ancestors, and it was founded in wisdom and justice. - -Mr. L. next quoted, first _Blackstone_, 402, which was one of the -British laws that had never been admitted in this country, and which, he -hoped, never would, viz: that wherein the distinction is drawn between -the Commoner and the Peer, an oath being required of the Commoner, upon -all occasions, and no more than "_upon my honor_" from a Peer, except in -giving evidence in civil or criminal trials. - -Mr. L. concluded, by saying that the difficulties which stood between -Mr. GALLATIN and his seat, were insurmountable and could not be removed -without showing a law of Massachusetts, Virginia, &c., repealing those -laws in regard to the qualification of citizens, which he had mentioned, -but which repeal he was certain did not exist. He therefore stated, that -to insist upon the gentleman's right to a seat, was both novel and -absurd. These were his opinions, which he had given in a perfectly -extempore way, not having been allowed time nor expecting to meet the -subject on the new ground which it had this day taken in the Senate. - -Mr. GALLATIN said, he would pledge himself to the Senate, to prove that -the grounds of his arguments and his construction of the Confederation -and laws of the States, were neither novel nor absurd, except in Mr. -L.'s construction of them, but had been admitted in many instances. -However, as the Common Law of England was now introduced by Mr. L., -which was new ground to him, and as the hour of adjournment was nearly -approaching, he would beg leave to make his reply to-morrow. - -On motion, the further consideration of this subject was postponed until -to-morrow. - - -FRIDAY, February 21. - -_Contested Election._ - -Agreeably to the order of the day the Senate resumed the consideration -of the report of the committee on the petition of Conrad Laub, and -others, respecting the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a Senator of the -United States. - -Mr. GALLATIN commenced his defence by laying down the principles on -which he intended to argue. His was a very serious situation for a -person to be placed in, who had been so long in America, and who had -mingled with the inhabitants in the common cause, that he should -afterwards be called before so solemn a tribunal, with an intention to -wrest from him his right of citizenship. He confessed, that on this -occasion his feelings were deeply interested, particularly as the manner -of the counsel for the prosecutors was so personal, and went not only to -deny him a seat in the Senate of the United States, but even to contest -his citizenship, and denounce him as being yet an alien. - -This was a matter of consequence to many thousands as well as himself, -who have long considered themselves in possession of all the privileges -of denizens, and yet may be deprived of their rights, if the doctrines -of the counsel for the prosecutors should obtain any sanction from the -body who were now to judge of its merits. - -Mr. G. entered into a series of observations on the various points of -law, &c., which had been adduced by Mr. LEWIS, and he particularly -remarked, that the Common Law of England was entirely inapplicable to -the subject under consideration. He read the laws of Virginia respecting -naturalization, &c., from which he insisted that he had long since -become a citizen of the United States. He also quoted 1st _Blackstone_, -p. 374, and _Viner's Abridgment_, vol. ii. p. 266, respecting the -different acceptations of denizen and citizen, and he went back so far -as the British statutes in 1740, to show the intention of the old -Government was to naturalize all persons who would go and reside in the -Colonies. He next mentioned the act of Pennsylvania, of the 31st of -August, 1778, and commented on the principles generally entertained by -most writers on the subjects of allegiance and citizenship. -_Blackstone_, 266, &c. - -An alien is a man born out of the allegiance of the King. But allegiance -in England is not an allegiance to the country or to society, as it is -understood in this country. - -In order to explain the principle of reciprocity, he observed, that when -the two crowns of England and Scotland were united under James, the -inhabitants of Scotland became naturalized in England, as if they had -been natural-born subjects of that country. The allegiance in Britain -was personal to the King, and it has there this remarkable quality, that -by the British laws allegiance can never be shaken off. - -This country, before the Revolution, owed allegiance to the King, but -that was destroyed by the Declaration of Independence, and then the -inhabitants of the States became mutually citizens of every State -reciprocally; and they continued so until such time as the States made -laws of their own afterwards respecting naturalization. - -As soon as separate governments existed, allegiance was due to each, and -here the allegiance was a reality, it was to the Government and to -society, whereas in Britain it is merely fictitious, being only to one -man. - -Every man who took an active part in the American Revolution, was a -citizen according to the great laws of reason and of nature, and when -afterwards positive laws were made, they were retrospective in regard to -persons under this predicament, nor did those posterior laws invalidate -the rights which they enjoy under the Confederation. - -Mr. G. here mentioned his having been an inhabitant of Massachusetts -before October, 1780, and he also observed, that the law passed in that -State was decisive against the Common Law of England. - -In quoting the laws of Massachusetts, which were passed in 1785, and -afterwards, for naturalizing John Gardner, and James Martin, he remarked -that they clearly implied that even a natural born subject, who had not -acted in the Revolution, and an absentee, was not entitled to -citizenship. He likewise took notice of the case of Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, -of South Carolina, against whose election as a Representative in -Congress, a petition was presented by Doctor Ramsay, although the -decision of South Carolina on that subject was exactly the reverse of -Massachusetts. - -In speaking of the difficulties that occurred in explaining the terms -citizen and alien, he ran over a number of cases, and asked whether if a -person had arrived in the United States during the war, from -Nova-Scotia, or elsewhere, and had taken an active part against the -enemy, would he not be better entitled to the right of a citizen, than -even those who afterwards subscribed to the acts? The counsel for the -prosecutors had admitted that a person who had been one of the mass of -the people, at the Declaration of Independence, was a citizen. On the -same principle, until a law passes to disprove that a man who was active -in the Revolution previous to the treaty of peace, was a citizen, he -must be one _ipse facto_. - -Mr. G. next read a quotation from the 1st vol. of _Woodison_, p. 382, an -English writer, who acknowledged that all persons were aliens at the -recognition of independence, and that is a more liberal construction -than the council for the petitioners would admit of, for by this -construction, our sailors, &c., ought to be naturalized, lest they be -alarmed by the British. - -The new Constitution of the United States requires certain -qualifications for members of Congress, &c., but it does not deprive -persons of their rights who were actually citizens before the -constitution was ratified that made the States the United States. They -were united by consent before, and consequently he was one of the people -before the United States existed. - -He went on to read from the Constitution of Massachusetts, and several -other States, sundry clauses in support of his reasoning, and -recapitulated the several heads of Mr. L.'s arguments, to each of which -he replied. - -Mr. G. said, that Mr. Lewis was unfortunate in producing the law of -Pennsylvania, for, by proving too much, he had proved nothing, for the -42d sec. of the constitution is retrospective, and by acknowledging the -Articles of Confederation to be the supreme law of the land, persons who -were reciprocally citizens before, are still left in full possession of -the right. - -So far from any dangerous consequences arising on my construction of -citizenship, said he, I think it must be evident, that there is more -danger and absurdity in the counsel's own constructions. For, in -remarking on the policy of nations, we find even slaves have been -enfranchised by the great republics in times of common danger. The -policy of America should be to make citizenship as easy as possible, for -the purpose of encouraging population; even during the British dominion -that was a principle laid down, and afterwards it was attempted to be -varied; it is made one of the principal subjects of complaint in the -Declaration of Independence, where it is expressly said, that the king -endeavored to prevent the population of these States, by having laws -made to obstruct the naturalization of foreigners. - -If there were any dangerous consequences to be apprehended from the -former regulations on this subject, they are all remedied by the new -constitution. - -Therefore, no ill consequence or absurdity can follow. The author of the -Federalist supports this principle in vol. ii. p. 54, for he says, that -it is a construction scarcely avoidable, that citizens of each of the -States are mutually so in all of them. - -The first words in the constitution, "We the People," furnished another -argument in support of Mr. G's principles, which he turned to great -advantage, still drawing an inference to show that Mr. L.'s construction -of the subject was most liable to difficulties and to mischievous -consequences. - -He concluded by observing, that if there was any disfranchising clauses -in the Constitution of the United States, tending to deprive citizens of -antecedent rights, all such clauses must be construed favorably, and -were evidently on his side. With regard to a sentence that had been -added, by the advice of counsel, to the affidavit of Pelatiah Webster, -he made some remarks which tended to establish his own personal -character, which he trusted would be found, when traced back to his -nativity, to stand the test; and that his right to a seat in the Senate -would also stand upon an equally just foundation. - -Mr. Lewis denied having ever seen the affidavit of Mr. Webster, until it -was shown him at the time the examination before the committee was going -forward. - -Mr. GALLATIN recriminated, that the clause of which he took notice, was -not in the affidavit when Mr. Webster brought it to the committee, and -that he had permitted it to be added with great reluctance. It was only -the recital of a few words which passed between Mr. G. and Mr. W. in -jest, some years since, wherein Mr. G. had ironically said his name was -Sidney, probably alluding to some essays that had appeared in the -newspapers under that signature, which had been generally attributed to -the pen of another gentleman in the State. - -Mr. JACKSON, in order to bring the merits of the subject directly before -the Senate, said he would move a resolution, that would have that -effect; but upon Mr. Lewis's observing, that he had not yet closed his -arguments, and at the instance of Mr. BUTLER, from South Carolina, who -said he would second Mr. JACKSON's motion hereafter, it was withdrawn -for the present. - -_Ordered_, That the further consideration thereof be postponed until -to-morrow. - - -SATURDAY, February 22. - -_Contested Election._ - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on -the petition of Conrad Laub, and others, respecting the election of Mr. -GALLATIN to be a Senator of the United States. - -The greater part of the day was taken up by Mr. Lewis's pleadings, -wherein he entered into a very extensive field of reasoning, and quoted -a great number of authorities, in support of the principles on which he -had set out last Thursday, and to prove that in the true sense of the -Constitution of the United States, as well as of that of the State of -Pennsylvania, Mr. GALLATIN was not duly qualified for the office of a -Senator, and therefore, he trusted that the honorable Senate, upon -mature reflection, would vacate his seat. - -Mr. GALLATIN closed his defence in a short speech, wherein he quoted -_Vattel_, p. 167, and explained the 42d section of the Constitution of -Pennsylvania, the liberal construction of which, he said, was in his -favor, and the construction contended for by the counsel, absurd. He -finished by reading a passage from _Lord Bacon's_ works, to show that -where there is any doubt in the laws, it should operate in favor of the -defendant, and he accordingly made no doubt but that the Senate would -validate his election. - -_Ordered_, That the further consideration of the subject be postponed -until Monday next. - -A motion was made as follows: - - "_Resolved_, That ALBERT GALLATIN, returned to this House - as a member for the State of Pennsylvania, is duly - qualified for, and elected to, a seat in the Senate of the - United States." - -_Ordered_, That the consideration of this motion be postponed until -Monday next, and that a number of copies of the fourth article of the -First Confederation of the United States be printed for the use of the -Senate. - - -MONDAY, February 24. - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made the -twenty-second instant, on the report of the committee on the petition of -Conrad Laub, and others, respecting the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a -Senator of the United States; and, after progress, - -_Ordered_, That the further consideration thereof be postponed until -to-morrow. - - -FRIDAY, February 28. - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the 22d instant, on the report -of the committee on the petition of Conrad Laub, and others, respecting -the election of Mr. GALLATIN to be a Senator of the United States. - -And, on the question to agree to the motion, as follows: - - "_Resolved_, That ALBERT GALLATIN, returned to this House - as a member for the State of Pennsylvania, is duly - qualified for, and elected to, a seat in the Senate of the - United States:" - -It passed in the negative--yeas 12, nays 14, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, Gunn, - Jackson, Langdon, Martin, Monroe, Robinson, and Taylor. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, - Frelinghuysen, Hawkins, Izard, King, Livermore, Mitchell, - Morris, Potts, Strong, and Vining. - -On motion that it be - - "_Resolved_, That the election of ALBERT GALLATIN to be a - Senator of the United States was void, he not having been a - citizen of the United States the term of years required as - a qualification to be a Senator of the United States:" - -A motion was made to divide the question at the word "void;" and, - -On motion to agree to the first paragraph of the motion so divided, it -passed in the affirmative--yeas 14, nays 12, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, - Frelinghuysen, Hawkins, Izard, King, Livermore, Mitchell, - Morris, Potts, Strong, and Vining. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, Edwards, Gunn, - Jackson, Langdon, Martin, Monroe, Robinson, and Taylor. - -On motion to adopt the resolution as follows: - - "_Resolved_, That the election of ALBERT GALLATIN to be a - Senator of the United States was void, he not having been - a citizen of the United States the term of years required - as a qualification to be a Senator of the United States:" - -It passed in the affirmative--yeas 14, nays 12. - -_Resolved_, That an attested copy of the resolution of the Senate, -declaring the election of ALBERT GALLATIN to be void, be transmitted by -the PRESIDENT of the Senate to the Executive of the Commonwealth of -Pennsylvania. - - -FRIDAY, March 7. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that -the House of Representatives have passed a bill, entitled "An act to -prohibit the carrying on the slave trade from the United States to any -foreign place or country;" also, a bill, entitled "An act limiting the -time for presenting claims for destroyed certificates of certain -descriptions;" in which bills, severally, they desire the concurrence of -the Senate. - - -THURSDAY, March 13. - -The bill authorizing and directing the settlement of the accounts of -Major General LAFAYETTE was read the third time. - -_Resolved_, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and that the -title thereof be "An act allowing to Major General LAFAYETTE his pay and -emoluments while in the service of the United States." - - -WEDNESDAY, March 19. - -The bill sent from the House of Representatives for concurrence, -entitled "An act to prohibit the carrying on the slave trade from the -United States to any foreign place or country," was read the third time -and passed. - - -THURSDAY, March 20. - -The bill to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in certain -cases, to alter the place for holding a session of Congress, was read -the second time. - - -MONDAY, March 24. - -KENSEY JOHNS appeared and produced his credentials of an appointment by -the Governor of the State of Delaware as a Senator for the United -States, which were read. - -Whereupon, it was moved that they be referred to the consideration of -the Committee of Elections before the said KENSEY JOHNS should be -permitted to qualify, who are directed to report thereon; and it passed -in the affirmative--yeas 13, nays 12, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Burr, Edwards, Gunn, - Hawkins, Jackson, Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Monroe, - Robinson, and Taylor. - - NAYS.--Messrs Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, - Frelinghuysen, Izard, Mitchell, Morris, Potts, Rutherford, - Strong, and Vining. - -The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill to authorize the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in certain cases, to alter the place -for holding a session of Congress. - - -TUESDAY, March 25. - -The bill to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in certain -cases, to alter the place for holding a session of Congress, was read -the third time; and, being amended, - -_Resolved_, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and that the -title thereof be, "An act to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES, in certain cases, to alter the place of holding a session of -Congress." - - -WEDNESDAY, March 26. - -The bill, sent from the House of Representatives for concurrence, -entitled "An act limiting the time for presenting claims for destroyed -certificates of certain descriptions," was read the third time. - -_Resolved_, That this bill pass with amendments. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that -the House have passed "A resolution laying an embargo on the vessels in -the ports of the United States;" in which they desire the concurrence of -the Senate. - - -FRIDAY, March 28. - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of -Elections, to whom was referred the credentials of Kensey Johns, -appointed by the Executive of the State of Delaware to be a Senator of -the United States; which report is as follows: - - "The Committee of Elections, to whom were referred the - credentials of an appointment by the Governor of the State - of Delaware, of Kensey Johns, as a Senator of the United - States, having had the same under consideration, report-- - - "That George Read, a Senator for the State of Delaware, - resigned his seat upon the 18th day of December, 1793, and - during the recess of the Legislature of said State. - - "That the Legislature of the said State met in January, and - adjourned in February, 1794. - - "That, upon the 19th day of March, and subsequent to the - adjournment of the said Legislature, Kensey Johns was - appointed, by the Governor of said State, to fill the - vacancy occasioned by the resignation aforesaid. - - "Whereupon, the committee submit the following resolution: - - "_Resolved_, That Kensey Johns, appointed by the Governor - of the State of Delaware, as a Senator of the United - States, for said State, is not entitled to a seat in the - Senate of the United States; a session of the Legislature - of the said State having intervened between the resignation - of the said George Read and the appointment of the said - Kensey Johns." - -On the question to agree to this report, it passed in the -affirmative--yeas 20, nays 7, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bradford, Bradley, Brown, Burr, Butler, - Cabot, Edwards, Ellsworth, Frelinghuysen, Gunn, Hawkins, - Jackson, King, Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Mitchell, - Monroe, Robinson, and Taylor. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Foster, Izard, Morris, Potts, Rutherford, - Strong, and Vining. - -_Resolved_, That an attested copy of the resolution of the Senate, on -the appointment of Kensey Johns to be a Senator of the United States, be -transmitted, by the PRESIDENT of the Senate, to the Executive of the -State of Delaware. - - -TUESDAY, May 20. - -The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:_ - - In the communications which I have made to Congress during - the present session relative to foreign nations, I have - omitted no opportunity of testifying my anxiety to preserve - the United States in peace. It is peculiarly, therefore, my - duty, at this time to lay before you the present state of - certain hostile threats against the territories of Spain in - our neighborhood. - - The documents which accompany this message develope the - measures which I have taken to suppress them, and the - intelligence which has been lately received. - - It will be seen from thence that the subject has not been - neglected; that every power vested in the Executive on such - occasions has been exerted; and that there was reason to - believe that the enterprise projected against the Spanish - dominions was relinquished. - - But it appears to have been revived upon principles which - set public order at defiance, and place the peace of the - United States in the discretion of unauthorized - individuals. The means already deposited in the different - departments of Government are shown, by experience, not to - be adequate to these high exigencies, although such of them - as are lodged in the hands of the Executive shall continue - to be used with promptness, energy, and decision, - proportioned to the case. But I am impelled, by the - position of our public affairs, to recommend that provision - be made for a stronger and more vigorous opposition than - can be given to such hostile movements under the laws as - they now stand. - - G. WASHINGTON. - UNITED STATES, _May_ 20, 1794. - -The Message and papers therein referred to were read, and ordered to lie -for consideration. - - -WEDNESDAY, May 21. - -The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:_ - - I lay before you, in confidence, sundry papers by which you - will perceive the state of affairs between us and the Six - Nations, and the probable cause to which it is owing; and - also certain information, whereby it would appear that some - encroachment was about to be made on our territory by an - officer and party of British troops. Proceeding upon a - supposition of the authenticity of this information, - although of a private nature, I have caused the - representation to be made to the British Minister, a copy - of which accompanies this Message. - - It cannot be necessary to comment upon the very serious - nature of such an encroachment, nor to urge that this new - state of things suggests the propriety of placing the - United States in a posture of effectual preparation for an - event which, notwithstanding the endeavors making to avert - it, may, by circumstances beyond our control, be forced - upon us. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _May 21, 1794._ - -The Message and papers therein referred to were read, and ordered to lie -for consideration. - - -MONDAY, June 9. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that -the House, having finished the business of the session, are about to -adjourn. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives, that -the Senate likewise, having finished the business of the session, are -about to adjourn; and, he having reported that he had delivered the -message, the PRESIDENT of the Senate, conformably to the resolution of -the 5th instant, adjourned the Senate to the day appointed by law for -the next meeting of Congress. - - - - -THIRD CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION. - -PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES - -IN - -THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. - - -MONDAY, December 2, 1793. - -This being the day appointed by the constitution for the meeting of the -present Congress, the following members appeared and took their seats: - -_From New Hampshire._--NICHOLAS GILMAN, JOHN S. SHERBURNE, JEREMIAH -SMITH, and PAINE WINGATE. - -_From Massachusetts._--SHEARJASHUB BOURNE, DAVID COBB, HENRY DEARBORN, -BENJAMIN GOODHUE, SAMUEL HOLTEN, WILLIAM LYMAN, THEODORE SEDGWICK, -GEORGE THATCHER, and ARTEMAS WARD. - -_From Connecticut._--AMASA LEARNED, URIAH TRACEY, JONATHAN TRUMBULL, and -JEREMIAH WADSWORTH. - -_From Vermont._--ISRAEL SMITH. - -_From New York._--THEODORUS BAILEY, EZEKIEL GILBERT, HENRY GLENN, JAMES -GORDON, SILAS TALBOT, JOHN E. VAN ALLEN, PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, PETER VAN -GAASBECK, and JOHN WATTS. - -_From New Jersey._--JOHN BEATTY, ELIAS BOUDINOT, LAMBERT CADWALADER, -ABRAHAM CLARK, and JONATHAN DAYTON. - -_From Pennsylvania._--JAMES ARMSTRONG, WILLIAM FINDLAY, THOMAS -FITZSIMONS, ANDREW GREGG, THOMAS HARTLEY, WILLIAM IRVINE, JOHN WILKES -KITTERA, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, PETER MUHLENBERG, THOMAS SCOTT, -and JOHN SMILIE. - -_From Maryland._--GEORGE DENT and SAMUEL SMITH. - -_From Virginia._--WILLIAM B. GILES, CARTER B. HARRISON, JOHN HEATH, -RICHARD BLAND LEE, JAMES MADISON, ANDREW MOORE, ANTHONY NEW, JOHN -NICHOLAS, FRANCIS PRESTON, ROBERT RUTHERFORD, ABRAHAM VENABLE, and -FRANCIS WALKER. - -_From Kentucky._--CHRISTOPHER GREENUP. - -_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT, WILLIAM JOHNSON DAWSON, MATTHEW -LOOKE, NATHANIEL MACON, and ALEXANDER MEBANE. - -_From South Carolina._--WILLIAM SMITH. - -_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN and THOMAS P. CARNES. - -A quorum of the members being present, the House proceeded to ballot for -a Speaker, when it appeared that FREDERICK A. MUHLENBERG, one of the -members from Pennsylvania, was elected; whereupon he was conducted to -the chair; and made his acknowledgments to the House.[47] - -The House then proceeded, in the same manner, to the appointment of a -Clerk, when JOHN BECKLEY was appointed. - -The usual oath was then administered to the members. - -Messages were interchanged between the two Houses, announcing their -formation and readiness to proceed to business. - -Joseph Wheaton was appointed Sergeant-at-Arms, Gifford Dally as -Doorkeeper, and Thomas Claxton as Assistant Doorkeeper. - -A joint committee was appointed by the two Houses to wait on the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, to inform him that a quorum of the two -Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communication that he may -think proper to make to them. - -_Resolved_, That two Chaplains, of different denominations, be -appointed, one by each House, to interchange weekly. - -_Resolved_, That a standing Committee of Elections be appointed; also a -committee to report rules and orders of proceeding. - - -TUESDAY, December 3. - -JOSEPH MCDOWELL and BENJAMIN WILLIAMS, from North Carolina, appeared, -and took their seats. - -A message from the Senate announced their readiness to receive the -communication from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The SPEAKER and -members withdrew to the Senate Chamber, where the PRESIDENT attended, -and delivered his Speech to the two Houses, which will be found in the -proceedings of the Senate. - -On the return of the members, the Speech was committed to a Committee of -the Whole. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 4. - -PELEG COFFIN, Jr., from Massachusetts, WILLIAM MONTGOMERY, from -Pennsylvania, and WILLIAM VANS MURRAY, from Maryland, appeared, produced -their credentials, and took their seats in the House; the oath to -support the Constitution of the United States being first administered -to them by the SPEAKER, according to law. - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of Congress; -and, after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the -committee had had the said Speech under consideration, and come to a -resolution thereupon; which was twice read, and agreed to by the House, -as follows: - -_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee that a respectful -Address ought to be presented by the House of Representatives to the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech to both Houses -of Congress, at the commencement of this session, containing assurances -that this House will take into consideration the various and important -matters recommended to their attention. - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. MADISON, SEDGWICK, WATTS, HARTLEY, and SAMUEL -SMITH, be appointed a committee to prepare an Address pursuant to the -said resolution. - - -THURSDAY, December 5. - -Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed, presented an Address to the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech to both Houses -of Congress; which was read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee -of the whole House to-morrow. - - -FRIDAY, December 6. - -JAMES HILLHOUSE, from Connecticut, and JOSIAH PARKER, from Virginia, -appeared, and took their seats. - -Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, from the Standing Committee of Elections, reported -that the committee had, in part, examined the certificates and other -credentials of the members returned to serve in this House, and had -agreed upon a report; which was read, and is as follows: - - "It appears to your committee, that the credentials of the - following members are sufficient to entitle them to take - their seats in the House, to wit:" - -[After enumerating the names of the members whose credentials were -examined, the report concludes:] - - "Your committee further report that, in the case of JOHN - PATTON, returned as a member for the State of Delaware, the - Executive of the said State have, together with the return, - transmitted a protest, made to them by Henry Latimer, of - the said State, against the return of the said JOHN - PATTON." - -_Ordered_, That the said report do lie on the table. - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his Speech -to both Houses of Congress; and, after some time spent therein, the -Chairman reported that the committee had had the said Address under -consideration, and made no amendment thereto. - -_Resolved, unanimously_, That this House doth agree to the said Address, -in the words following: - - SIR: The Representatives of the people of the United - States, in meeting you for the first time since you have - been again called, by a unanimous suffrage, to your present - station, find an occasion, which they embrace with no less - sincerity than promptitude, for expressing to you their - congratulations on so distinguished a testimony of public - approbation, and their entire confidence in the purity and - patriotism of the motives which have produced this - obedience to the voice of your country. It is to virtues - which have commanded long and universal reverence, and - services from which have flowed great and lasting benefits, - that the tribute of praise may be paid without the reproach - of flattery; and it is from the same sources that the - fairest anticipations may be derived in favor of the public - happiness. - - The United States having taken no part in the war which had - embraced in Europe the Powers with whom they have the most - extensive relations, the maintenance of peace was justly to - be regarded as one of the most important duties of the - Magistrate charged with the faithful execution of the laws. - We accordingly witness, with approbation and pleasure, the - vigilance with which you have guarded against an - interruption of that blessing, by your Proclamation, - admonishing our citizens of the consequences of illicit or - hostile acts towards the belligerent parties; and - promoting, by a declaration of the existing legal state of - things, an easier admission of our right to the immunities - belonging to our situation. - - The connection of the United States with Europe has - evidently become extremely interesting. The communications - which remain to be exhibited to us will, no doubt, assist - in giving us a fuller view of the subject, and in guiding - our deliberations to such results as may comport with the - rights and true interests of our country. - - We learn, with deep regret, that the measures, dictated by - a love of peace, for obtaining an amicable termination of - the afflicting war on our frontiers, have been frustrated, - and that a resort to offensive measures should have again - become necessary. As the latter, however, must be rendered - more satisfactory, in proportion to the solicitude for - peace, manifested by the former, it is to be hoped they - will be pursued under the better auspices, on that account, - and be finally crowned with more happy success. - - In relation to the particular tribe of Indians against whom - offensive measures have been prohibited, as well as on all - the other important subjects which you have presented to - our view, we shall bestow the attention which they claim. - We cannot, however, refrain, at this time, from - particularly expressing our concurrence in your anxiety for - the regular discharge of the public debts, as fast as - circumstances and events will permit, and, in the policy of - removing any impediments that may be found in the way of a - faithful representation of public proceedings throughout - the United States, being persuaded, with you, that on no - subject more than the former can delay be more injurious, - or an economy of time more valuable; and that, with respect - to the latter, no resource is so firm for the Government of - the United States as the affections of the people, guided - by an enlightened policy. - - Throughout our deliberations we shall endeavor to cherish - every sentiment which may contribute to render them - conducive to the dignity as well as to the welfare of the - United States. And we join with you in imploring that - Being, on whose will the fate of nations depends, to crown - with success our mutual endeavors. - -_Resolved_, That Mr. SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said -Address, and that Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. HARTLEY, be a -committee to wait on the PRESIDENT, to know when and where it will be -convenient for him to receive the same. - -Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF -THE UNITED STATES, to know when and where it will be convenient for him -to receive the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both -Houses of Congress, reported that the committee had waited on the -PRESIDENT, who signified to them that it would be convenient to him to -receive the said Address at 12 o'clock, to-morrow, at his own house. - - -SATURDAY, December 7. - -PELEG WADSWORTH, from Massachusetts, and JOSEPH NEVILLE, from Virginia, -appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats. - -The SPEAKER, attended by the House, then withdrew to the house of the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and there presented to him the Address -of this House, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; to -which the PRESIDENT made the following reply: - - GENTLEMEN: I shall not affect to conceal the cordial - satisfaction which I derive from the Address of the House - of Representatives. Whatsoever those services may be which - you have sanctioned by your favor, it is a sufficient - reward that they have been accepted as they were meant. For - the fulfilment of your anticipations of the future, I can - give no other assurance than that the motives which you - approve shall continue unchanged. - - It is truly gratifying to me to learn that the Proclamation - has been considered as a seasonable guard against the - interruption of the public peace. Nor can I doubt that the - subjects which I have recommended to your attention as - depending on Legislative provisions, will receive a - discussion suited to their importance. With every reason, - then, it may be expected that your deliberations, under the - Divine blessing, will be matured to the honor and happiness - of the United States. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - -MONDAY, December 9. - -GABRIEL CHRISTIE, from Maryland, THOMAS CLAIBORNE and GEORGE HANCOCK, -from Virginia, JOSEPH WINSTON, from North Carolina, JOHN HUNTER and -ANDREW PICKENS, from South Carolina, appeared, produced their -credentials, and took their seats in the House. - - -TUESDAY, December 10. - -The House resumed the reading of the communications received from the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, on Thursday last, and made a further -progress therein. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 11. - -BENJAMIN BOURNE and FRANCIS MALBONE, from Rhode Island, appeared, -produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House. - - -FRIDAY, December 13. - -THOMAS TREDWELL, from New York, and JOHN PATTON, from Delaware, -appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats. - -_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill -to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United -States; and that Mr. GILES, Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. AMES, Mr. HARTLEY, -Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. FITZSIMONS, and Mr. BOUDINOT, be the said committee. - - -MONDAY, December 16. - -SAMUEL DEXTER, Junior, from Massachusetts, JOSHUA COIT and ZEPHANIAH -SWIFT, from Connecticut, and RICHARD WINN, from South Carolina, -appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats. - - -THURSDAY, December 19. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State, -accompanying a report on the privileges and restrictions on the commerce -of the United States in foreign countries, made pursuant to a resolution -of the House of the twenty-third of February, one thousand seven hundred -and ninety-one; which was read, and ordered to be committed to the -Committee of the whole House, to whom are committed the confidential -communications from the PRESIDENT respecting the measures which have -been pursued for obtaining a recognition of the treaty between the -United States and Morocco, and for the ransom of prisoners and -establishment of peace with the Algerines. - - -FRIDAY, December 20. - -WILLIAM HINDMAN, from Maryland, and SAMUEL GRIFFIN, from Virginia, -appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats. - - -MONDAY, December 23. - -ALEXANDER D. ORR, from Kentucky, appeared, produced his credentials, and -took his seat in the House. - - -THURSDAY, December 26. - -A petition of Abram Trigg, of the State of Virginia, was presented to -the House and read, complaining of an undue election and return of -Francis Preston, to serve as a member of this House for the said State. - -_Ordered_, That the said petition be referred to the Committee of -Elections; that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same, -with their opinion thereon, to the House. - - -FRIDAY, December 27. - -DANIEL HEISTER, from Pennsylvania, appeared, produced his credentials, -and took his seat in the House. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 1, 1794. - -URIAH FORREST and THOMAS SPRIGG, from Maryland, appeared, produced their -credentials, and took their seats in the House. - - -THURSDAY, January 2. - -ISAAC COLES, from Virginia, and WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, from North -Carolina, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in -the House. - - -FRIDAY, January 3. - -_Commerce of the United States._[48] - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions on -the commerce of the United States in foreign countries. - -Mr. MADISON, after some general observations on the report, entered into -a more particular consideration of the subject. He remarked, that the -commerce of the United States is not, at this day, on that respectable -footing to which, from its nature and importance, it is entitled. He -recurred to its situation previous to the adoption of the constitution, -when conflicting systems prevailed in the different States. The then -existing state of things gave rise to that Convention of Delegates from -the different parts of the Union, who met to deliberate on some general -principles for the regulation of commerce, which might be conducive, in -their operation, to the general welfare, and that such measures should -be adopted as would conciliate the friendship and good faith of those -countries who were disposed to enter into the nearest commercial -connections with us. But what has been the result of the system which -has been pursued ever since? What is the present situation of our -commerce? From the situation in which we find ourselves after four -years' experiment, he observed, that it appeared incumbent on the United -States to see whether they could not now take measures promotive of -those objects for which the Government was in a great degree instituted. -Measures of moderation, firmness, and decision, he was persuaded, were -now necessary to be adopted, in order to narrow the sphere of our -commerce with those nations who see proper not to meet us on terms of -reciprocity. - -Mr. M. then read the following resolutions: - - [The principle of these resolutions will be best seen in - the debates upon them.] - -Mr. M. took a general view of the probable effects which the adoption of -something like the resolutions he had proposed, would produce. They -would produce, respecting many articles imported, a competition which -would enable countries who do not now supply us with those articles, to -do it, and would increase the encouragement on such as we can produce -within ourselves. We should also obtain an equitable share in carrying -our own produce; we should enter into the field of competition on equal -terms, and enjoy the actual benefit of advantages which nature and the -spirit of our people entitle us to. - -He adverted to the advantageous situation this country is entitled to -stand in, considering the nature of our exports and returns. Our exports -are bulky, and therefore must employ much shipping, which might be -nearly all our own: our exports are chiefly necessaries of life, or raw -materials, the food for the manufacturers of other nations. On the -contrary, the chief of what we receive from other countries, we can -either do without, or produce substitutes. - -It is in the power of the United States, he conceived, by exerting her -natural rights, without violating the rights, or even the equitable -pretensions of other nations--by doing no more than most nations do for -the protection of their interests, and much less than some, to make her -interests respected; for, what we receive from other nations are but -luxuries to us, which, if we choose to throw aside, we could deprive -part of the manufacturers of those luxuries, of even bread, if we are -forced to the contest of self-denial. This being the case, our country -may make her enemies feel the extent of her power. We stand, with -respect to the nation exporting those luxuries, in the relation of an -opulent individual to the laborer, in producing the superfluities for -his accommodation; the former can do without those luxuries, the -consumption of which gives bread to the latter. - -He did not propose, or wish that the United States should at present go -so far in the line which his resolutions point to, as they might go. The -extent to which the principles involved in those resolutions should be -carried, will depend upon filling up the blanks. To go to the very -extent of the principle immediately, might be inconvenient. He wished, -only, that the Legislature should mark out the ground on which we think -we can stand; perhaps it may produce the effect wished for, without -unnecessary irritation; we need not at first go every length. - -Another consideration would induce him, he said, to be moderate in -filling up the blanks--not to wound public credit. He did not wish to -risk any sensible diminution of the public revenue. He believed that if -the blanks were filled with judgment, the diminution of the revenue, -from a diminution in the quantity of imports, would be counterbalanced -by the increase in the duties. - -The last resolution he had proposed, he said, is, in a manner, distinct -from the rest. The nation is bound by the most sacred obligation, he -conceived, to protect the rights of its citizens against a violation of -them from any quarter; or, if they cannot protect, they are bound to -repay the damage. - -It is a fact authenticated to this House by communications from the -Executive, that there are regulations established by some European -nations; contrary to the Law of Nations, by which our property is -seized and disposed of in such a way that damages have accrued. We are -bound either to obtain reparation for the injustice, or compensate the -damage. It is only in the first instance, no doubt, that the burden is -to be thrown upon the United States. The proper department of Government -will, no doubt, take proper steps to obtain redress. The justice of -foreign nations will certainly not permit them to deny reparation when -the breach of the Law of Nations appears evidently; at any rate, it is -just that the individual should not suffer. He believed the amount of -the damages that would come within the meaning of this resolution, would -not be very considerable. - -Mr. M.'s resolutions being seconded, were presented and read by the -Clerk. - -Mr. W. SMITH rose to make some remarks on the observations of Mr. -MADISON, when a motion was made by Mr. FITZSIMONS, that the committee -should rise, and report progress, and that the House should give order -for printing the resolutions. - -After some further remarks by two or three members, Mr. MADISON said he -had no wish to precipitate the discussion; he was content that the -committee should now rise, and that a future early day should be -assigned. - - -MONDAY, January 6. - -JAMES GILLESPIE, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his -credentials, and took his seat in the House. - -_Pay of Soldiers._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -bill for completing and better supporting the Military Establishment of -the United States. The bill being read, - -On the clause of the bill for augmenting the pay of the soldiers from -three to four dollars per month, Mr. IRVINE proposed an addition of a -fifth dollar, which seemed to meet the unanimous sense of the members; -but Mr. CLARK thought this last augmentation too great. They might, in -this way of proceeding, raise the pay in time to ten dollars a month. - -Mr. SCOTT was of opinion that there was no just proportion between the -wages of ordinary labor and that of military service. He could not hire -a workman, who was to sleep at peace in his bed, and to dine at a good -table, for the pay that was given to a soldier for enduring the -hardships of his dangerous profession. An augmentation of their pay -would flatter the troops. It would put them in good humor; and therefore -he hoped that the five dollars would be carried through the House. - -Mr. SMILIE said, that the expense of living had been considerably raised -in every part of the United States. The pay of the soldiers ought, in -common justice, to be advanced in an equal degree with that of the other -persons employed in the service of the State. Congress had lately -received a petition from some gentlemen employed in the public offices -of Philadelphia. The officers of the army had been talking of a similar -necessity of an advance in their pay. The United States ought to pay -well, that they might obtain good men. Many recruits had, upon late -occasions, enlisted, and several of them in Philadelphia, who never -should have been admitted into the Military Establishment of any nation -whatever. - -Mr. WADSWORTH did not see any reason for the proposed additional dollar -per month. If he had thought it necessary, he should have been very -ready to mention it. In the States north of Pennsylvania, the wages of a -common laborer were not, upon the whole, superior to those of a common -soldier. It had been alleged that, by augmenting the pay of the troops, -we should get better men. This was a doctrine which he, for one, did not -understand. The present Western Army were as good troops as ever went -into the field, and much better than the late Continental Army. Men of a -sober character did not and would not enlist. Recruits might have very -good morals, and it was certain that many honest men did not love labor. -Curiosity, levity, the heat of youth, and other very excusable motives, -sent people to the army; but it never was, nor never will be, the place -where a thoughtful and industrious private man would be ambitious to -exert his talents. For this reason, he was convinced that to enlarge the -pay would answer no good purpose. As to the militia, who were, many of -them, substantial people, it was in vain to imagine that they would -fulfil the end of an army in the Indian war. They had been tried, and -the experiment had failed. He again adverted to the impossibility of -supplying the ranks with recruits above the most ordinary classes of -life. He never had seen an army, such as it was believed that the -additional dollar would assemble, and he despaired ever to see such an -army. There was, however, an act of bounty, which might be of infinite -service to the troops, and which he should take a future opportunity of -moving. He referred to a provision for the widows and children of such -soldiers as should happen to lose their lives in the service. - -Mr. BOUDINOT said, that he should be very sorry to recommend the -augmentation, if he thought that it would induce farmers, and sober, -industrious people to quit their families and professions in exchange -for a military life. This, he thought, would indeed be a very alarming -consequence, and, did he apprehend it, he should undoubtedly oppose the -intended increase. He had no apprehensions of that kind. America would -be in a very bad situation, indeed, if an additional pay of twelve -dollars a year could bribe a farmer or manufacturer to enlist. He should -look very strange at any of his neighbors who should tell him that they -had embraced such an offer. Instead of augmenting the pay, perhaps it -was better to add something to the rations; those, for example, of salt -and flour. He thought it safest to agree to the four dollars, because -if they voted for five, the bill would probably be thrown out of the -other House; and thus, by grasping at too much, the movers of the -amendment would lose the bill altogether. Originally, troops had been -raised for less than two dollars per month. The pay had since been -augmented to three, and was now on the way of being raised to four. He -wished to make its advances gradual. If we looked at the situations of -other countries, and contemplated the state of their finances, we should -be convinced that America paid her troops as well in proportion to her -ability as any other people in the world, and that her soldiers had no -right to complain. - -Mr. MONTGOMERY spoke a few words in favor of an advance to five dollars. - -Mr. SCOTT said, that Pennsylvania had some time ago raised a few -companies of soldiers for her frontier service, and given them two -pounds ten shillings currency per month, which was equal to six dollars -and two-thirds. In consequence of this, the companies had been filled -with some of the most respectable kind of people in the country. They -were quite of a different class from the recruits raised for the Western -Army. He wished to try the five dollars. This superior pay was reported -to have hurt the Continental recruiting service. He thought it very -possible that such had been the case. If Government give the proposed -five dollars, the Continental Army might, perhaps, get all the levies -which it wanted from these very companies. - -Mr. HUNTER would have voted for six dollars. - -Mr. BEATTY said, that he was for giving five dollars, from a conviction -that it was requisite for the service. - -Mr. SMILIE was decidedly for the additional augmentation. The recruits, -he said, who had been raised in this city were sad fellows, and not fit -to be trusted. Better pay would bring forward better men. - -Mr. SMITH said that, as to the rate of labor, good men were hired to -work in Vermont for eighteen pounds a year, which is equal to four -dollars per month, and out of that they find their own clothes. He -thought it a very dangerous plan to raise the wages of soldiers at this -time, when every article was above its natural price; because, when -things return to their old level, it would be impossible to reduce their -wages. The people of Europe had, by their wars, increased the demand for -the produce of our farms, and this had raised the wages of labor. The -members of Congress had six dollars per day, and it would be no easy -matter to alter that, which he seemed to hint might not be quite -improper. He thought that high pay would only serve to make the soldiers -get drunk. It would be much better to give them some substantial -gratification at the end of the service. - -Mr. WADSWORTH said that the army, in getting four dollars, got plenty, -and he despaired of seeing five dollars pass through that House; but, -were they to vote twenty dollars, they never would be able to enlist -that class of men whom it was expected five dollars would collect. A -member had mentioned, as a proof of the possibility of enlisting the -sons of farmers, the instance of a party in one of the New England -States, who had formed themselves into a military body, and had gone -westward in quest of a settlement, but were cut to pieces by the -Indians. He knew this; and he had likewise heard of others who had since -gone from the same quarter, and upon the same errand. He had inquired -about their characters, and had found, just as he had expected, that -they were very honest, good sort of people, but somewhat of a rambling -disposition, and not remarkably industrious. As to the notion of -enlisting men, and attaching them to their country, by five dollars a -month, it would not do. The old Continental Army were very good -soldiers, but certainly some of them did not fight for the sake of their -country, since they deserted by scores. They were, however, brought -back, and fought very well. Their reasons for deserting, he did not -pretend to know; but this he knew, that they were very idle and very -worthless fellows, which did not hinder them from doing their duty. Mr. -W. added, that it was a mistake to propose giving five dollars a month -for fear that we should not be able to get recruits. In a short time our -communication by sea would be cut off. We would likewise be prevented -from emigrations into the back country. Recruits would then be had in -the greatest abundance for four dollars a month, as great numbers of -people would then be thrown out of employment, and enlist for want of -it. - -The amendment to the bill, of adding two dollars instead of one, was -rejected. - -Mr. CLARK then moved, as an amendment of the bill, that there should be -an addition of four ounces of bread or flour, and four ounces of meat to -each ration. - -Mr. HARTLEY was for augmenting the rations. He knew that they were too -small. In cultivated countries they might do, but not in the backwoods, -where vegetables were not to be had. - -Mr. WADSWORTH was convinced that the rations were sufficient unless on a -march. He spoke, he said, from experience. - -Mr. GILES had been frequently informed by officers in the army, that the -rations were all defective. In the backwoods, the soldiers had been -often reduced to such distress for want of vegetables, as to go in -search of acorns to supply their place. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS said, that he had been informed that the principal -objection to the rations was the inferior quality of the meat, and that -this arose from the leanness of the cattle, as being exhausted by hard -driving. Instead, therefore, of a regular increase, it might perhaps be -better to provide for accidental contingencies. - -Mr. MURRAY moved, and his motion was seconded, to amend the amendment by -striking out the words, and "four ounces of meat." - -Mr. SMITH said, that an aide-de-camp, who was his relation, and now -serving in the army, had wrote him that they were just now well fed, -well clothed, in good health, and as good spirits as an army had ever -enjoyed. The reason of the common rations of provisions failing in a -march, was owing to the waste in cooking. The amendment of Mr. CLARK, -and the additional amendment of Mr. MURRAY, were both withdrawn. - -The committee now rose and reported the amendment, and the bill and -amendment were ordered to lie on the table. - -_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to report whether any, and -what, alteration ought to be made in the ration now allowed to the -troops of the United States; and that Mr. IRVINE, Mr. DEARBORN, and Mr. -HEISTER, be the said committee. - - -TUESDAY, January 7. - -_Flag of the United States._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act making an alteration in the -Flag of the United States." - -Mr. GOODHUE thought it a trifling business, which ought not to engross -the attention of the House, when it was their duty to discuss matters of -infinitely greater consequence. If we are to alter the flag from -thirteen to fifteen stripes, with two additional stars, because Vermont -and Kentucky have been added, we may go on adding and altering at this -rate for one hundred years to come. It is very likely, before fifteen -years elapse, we shall consist of twenty States. The flag ought to be -permanent. - -Mr. LYMAN was of a different opinion. He thought it of the greatest -consequence not to offend the new States. - -Mr. THATCHER ridiculed the idea of being at so much trouble, as a -consummate specimen of frivolity. At this rate, every State should alter -its public seal when an additional county or township was formed. He was -sorry to see the House take up their time with such trifles. - -Mr. GREENUP considered it of very great consequence to inform the rest -of the world that we had now two additional States. - -Mr. NILES was very sorry that such a matter should even for a moment -have hindered the House from going into more important affairs. He did -not think the alteration either worth the trouble of adopting or -rejecting; but he supposed that the shortest way to get rid of it was to -agree to it, and for that reason, and no other, he advised to pass it as -soon as possible. - -The committee agreed to it, and the Chairman reported the bill. The -House then took it up. - -Mr. BOUDINOT thought it of consequence to keep the citizens of Vermont -and Kentucky in good humor. They might be affronted at our rejecting the -bill. - -Mr. GOODHUE said, he felt for the honor of the House, when spending -their time on such sort of business. But, since it must be passed, he -had only to beg this favor, that it might not appear upon the journals, -and go into the world as the first of the bills passed this session. - -Mr. MADISON was for the bill passing. - -Mr. GILES thought it very proper that the idea should be preserved of -the number of our States, and the number of stripes corresponding. The -expense was but trifling, compared with that of forming the Government -of a new State. - -Mr. SMITH said, that this alteration would cost him five hundred -dollars, and every vessel in the Union sixty. He could not conceive what -the Senate meant by sending them such bills. He supposed that it must be -for want of something better to do. He should indulge them, but let us -have no more alterations of this sort. Let the flag be permanent. - -It was ordered that the bill be read a third time to-morrow. - - -FRIDAY, January 10. - -_French Emigrants from St. Domingo._ - -Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, from the committee to whom was referred the petition -of William Patterson, Samuel Sterrett, and Gustavus Scott, the committee -appointed by the Legislature of Maryland to draw and distribute the -moneys granted by that State for the relief of the French emigrants from -the Island of St. Domingo, made a report: - -Mr. S. SMITH said, that there never was a more noble and prompt display -of the most exalted feelings, than had been exhibited on this occasion. -He believed that such a scene of distress had never before been seen in -America. Three thousand fugitives had been at once landed, without the -least previous expectation of their arrival. The whole inhabitants -instantly assembled, and deputed a committee, of which he was one, to go -on board the vessels, and examine their situation. Thirteen thousand -dollars were instantly subscribed. Fifteen hundred of these people were -quite helpless; three hundred and fifty of them were old men, or women -without their husbands, or children without their parents. Some had -credit, and some had not. Five hundred of them had been sent to France -by the Minister, at the expense of the Republic; the rest remain in this -country. - -Mr. MADISON wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of -establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted -to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He -acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his -finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right -to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their -constituents. And if once they broke the line laid down before them, for -the direction of their conduct, it was impossible to say to what -lengths they might go, or to what extremities this practice might be -carried. He did not agree with the member who spoke last, that nothing -like the generosity of America had ever been heard of before. As one -example in contradiction to this assertion, he mentioned, that when the -city of Lisbon had, in 1755, been overwhelmed by an earthquake, the -Parliament of England instantly voted one hundred thousand pounds for -the support of the sufferers. In doing this, they had, he believed, -acted in unison with the feelings of the British nation, and such -feelings did that nation the utmost honor. He likewise imagined, that -the Parliament had acted agreeably to the British Constitution, which -allowed them an indefinite and absolute right in disposing of the money -of their constituents. But as to the American Congress, the case was -widely different. He was satisfied that the citizens of the United -States possessed an equal degree of magnanimity, generosity, and -benevolence, with the people of Britain, but this House certainly did -not possess an undefined authority correspondent with that of a British -Parliament. He wished that some other mode could be devised for -assisting the French sufferers than by an act of Congress. He was in -hopes that some other mode, equally effectual, and less exceptionable, -might be devised. As to what our Executive Government had already done, -as quoted from the official despatches by the gentleman who spoke last, -the inference did not apply; for in that emergency, a delay would have -been equivalent to a total denial. It had been said, that we owed the -French every sentiment of gratitude. It was true; but it was likewise -true that we owed them something else than sentiments, for we were -indebted to them a very large sum of money. One of the instalments of -that debt would be due in a short time, and perhaps it might be safest -for Congress to advance the sums now wanted for the French refugees, in -part of that debt, and leave it to the decision of the French Ministry -whether they would accept of such a payment or not. He did not wish to -press this expedient upon the House, but he begged leave to submit it to -their consideration; and as he had not yet been able to resolve in his -own mind what line of conduct the House ought to pursue, he requested -that the discussion of the question might for a short time be deferred. - -Mr. CLARK wished that the gentleman who spoke last would be careful of -preserving consistency. It was only a few days ago that he had laid -before the House a resolution, by which Congress were to indemnify all -such citizens of the United States as had suffered losses by the British -pirates. He supposed that for this, there would be found as little -authority in the articles of the constitution, as for relieving the -fugitives from Cape François. - -Mr. MADISON, in explanation, replied, that the two cases were widely -different. The vessels of America sailed under our flag, and were under -our protection, by the law of nations, which the French sufferers -unquestionably were not. As to the resolution he had proposed, it was -not then before the House, and hence he could not speak to it with -propriety. It was very possible that the House might find it wrong, and -reject it. He wished not to be misunderstood, for he was sure that every -member in that House felt the warmest sympathy with the situation of the -sufferers. He would be very glad to find a proper way for their relief. - -Mr. NICHOLAS said, that he had not been able to discover upon what -authority the House were to grant the proposed donation. If the question -should that day come to a vote, which he trusted it would not, he had -resolved to give his voice in favor of the sufferers: but, when he -returned to his constituents, he would honestly tell them that he -considered himself as having exceeded his powers, and so cast himself on -their mercy. He felt many obstacles to voting away this money without -further deliberation. - -Mr. BOUDINOT declared, that he had never been able to discover any -difficulty in the matter. By the law of nature, by the law of -nations--in a word, by every moral obligation that could influence -mankind, we were bound to relieve the citizens of a Republic who were at -present our allies, and who had formerly been our benefactors. He could -not for a moment endure the idea of a hesitation on such a question. -When a number of our fellow-creatures had been cast upon our sympathy, -in a situation of such unexampled wretchedness, was it possible that -gentlemen could make a doubt whether it was our duty to relieve them? It -had been said that the House was not, by the constitution, authorized to -give away money for such purposes. He was satisfied, that to refuse the -assistance requested, would be to act in direct opposition both to the -theory and practice of the constitution. In the first place, as to the -practice, it had been said that nothing of this kind had ever occurred -before under the Federal Constitution. He was astonished at such an -affirmation. Did not the Indians frequently come down to this city, on -embassies respecting the regulating of trade, and other business--and -did not the Executive, without consulting Congress at all, pay their -lodgings for weeks, nay, for whole months together? and was not this -merely because the Indians were unable to pay for themselves? Nobody -ever questioned the propriety of that act of charity. Again; when -prisoners of war were taken, there was no clause in the constitution -authorizing Congress to provide for their subsistence: yet it was well -known that they would not be suffered to starve. Provision was instantly -made for them, before we could tell whether the nation to whom they -belonged would pay such expenses, or would not pay them. It was very -true that an instalment would soon be due to France, nor did he object -to reimbursement in that way, if it could be so obtained. But, in the -mean time, relief must be given, for he was convinced that he had still -stronger obligations to support the citizens of our allies than either -Indians or prisoners of war. In the second place, as to the theory of -the constitution, he referred gentlemen to the first clause of the -eighth section of it. By that clause Congress were warranted to provide -for exigencies regarding _the general welfare_, and he was sure this -case came under that description. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS thought that it would be expedient to lose as little time -as possible in going into the committee. It was hard on the State of -Maryland to support of itself such an immense number of people. Besides, -the period for which that State had engaged to furnish them with -subsistence was expiring; so that it was absolutely necessary to come to -an early decision whether the House would assist them or not. Mr. Genet -had made a discrimination among the sufferers; some of them he had -promised to assist, and others, as _aristocrats_, he had disowned -altogether. - -Mr. DEXTER read the clause referred to by Mr. BOUDINOT, but could not -draw from it any such inference. He was very unwilling to vote against -the proposition, and therefore solicited a delay, that he might have -leisure to find proper reasons for voting in its favor. - -Mr. GILES was averse to precipitation in an affair of such magnitude. -The report had been read for a first time to-day; it had then been read -for a second time to-day. As if all this had not been sufficient, the -House must likewise go into a committee this day. Like the gentleman who -had just sat down, he felt many doubts as to the legality of such an act -of bounty; and he wished, before he gave a vote on either side of the -question, to free himself from these doubts. He considered duty to his -constituents as a very solemn trust. Some personal insinuations had been -cast out, as if gentlemen who professed constitutional scruples had -wished to embarrass the subject. Reflections of this kind could answer -no good purpose. Gentlemen (said Mr. G.) appeal to our humanity. The -appeal is out of place. That is not the question; but whether, organized -as we are, under the constitution, we have a right to make such a grant? -He did not understand why an application was made to Congress in -particular. It would have been made with greater propriety to the -Provincial Assemblies, as their power over the purses of their -constituents was more extensive than that of this House over the -revenues of the United States. - -[The motion for the House resolving itself into a committee immediately -was then withdrawn, and the report was committed to a Committee of the -Whole on the state of the Union.] - - -MONDAY, January 13. - -_Commerce of the United States._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions -on the commerce of the United States, in foreign countries, when - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) rose and addressed the Chair as follows: - -Mr. Chairman: Among the various duties which are assigned by the -constitution to the Legislature of the United States, there is, perhaps, -none of a more important nature than the regulation of commerce, none -more generally interesting to our fellow-citizens, none which more -seriously claims our diligent and accurate investigation. - -It so essentially involves our navigating, agricultural, commercial, and -manufacturing interest, that an apology for the prolixity of the -observations which I am about to submit to the committee, will scarcely -be requisite. - -In the view which I shall take of the question, disengaging the inquiry -from all topics of a political nature, I shall strictly confine myself -to those which are commercial, and which alone are, in my judgment, -properly connected with the subject. - -Called upon to decide on propositions, merely commercial, and springing -from a report, in its nature limited to commercial regulations, it would -be as ill-timed, as it would be irregular, to mingle with the discussion -considerations of a political nature. I shall, accordingly, reject from -the inquiry every idea which has reference to the Indians, the -Algerines, or the Western posts. Whenever those subjects require our -deliberations, I shall not yield to any member in readiness to vindicate -the honor of our country, and to concur in such measures as our best -interests may demand. - -This line of procedure will, I trust, be deemed by those gentlemen who -follow me, the only proper one, and that the debate will be altogether -confined to commercial views; these will of themselves open a field of -discussion sufficiently spacious, without the intervention of arguments -derived from other sources. It would indeed argue a weakness of ground -in the friends of the propositions, and imply a distrust of the merits -of their cause, were they compelled to bolster it up with such -auxiliaries, and to resort for support to arguments, not resulting from -the nature of the subject, but from irrelative and extraneous -considerations. - -The propositions, as well as the report, being predicated upon facts and -principles having relation to our commerce and navigation with foreign -countries, by those facts and principles, and those alone, ought the -propositions to stand or fall. - -It will not be denied that this country is at present in a very delicate -crisis, and one requiring dispassionate reflection, cool and mature -deliberation. It will be much to be regretted then, if passion should -usurp the place of reason, if superficial, narrow, and prejudiced views -should mislead the public councils from the true path of national -interest. - -The report of the Secretary of State, on the privileges and restrictions -on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries is now before -the committee. The tendency of that report (whatever may have been the -design of the reporter) appears to be to induce a false estimate of the -comparative condition of our commerce with certain foreign nations, and -to urge the Legislature to adopt a scheme of retaliating, regulations, -restrictions, and exclusions. - -The most striking contrast which the performance evidently aims at, is -between Great Britain and France. For this reason, and as these are the -two Powers with whom we have the most extensive relations in trade, I -shall, by a particular investigation of the subject, endeavor to lay -before the committee an accurate and an impartial comparison of the -commercial systems of the two countries in reference to the United -States, as a test of the solidity of the inferences which are attempted -to be established by the report. A fair comparison can only be made with -an eye to what may be deemed the permanent system of the countries in -question. The proper epoch for it, therefore, will precede the -commencement of the pending French Revolution. - -The commercial regulations of France during the period of the Revolution -have been too fluctuating, too much influenced by momentary impulses, -and, as far as they have looked towards this country with a favorable -eye, too much manifesting an object of the moment, which cannot be -mistaken to consider them as a part of a system. But though the -comparison will be made with principal reference to the condition of our -trade with France and Great Britain, antecedent to the existing -revolution, the regulations of the subsequent period will perhaps not be -passed over altogether unnoticed. - -The table which I have before me comprises the principal features of the -subject within a short compass. It is the work of a gentleman of -considerable commercial knowledge, and I believe may be relied on for -its correctness. An attentive reference to it will, with some -supplementary remarks, convey a just conception of the object; a view to -conciseness and simplicity has excluded from it all articles (the -production and manufactures of the United States) which are not of -considerable importance. - -Accustomed as our ears have been to a constant panegyric on the generous -policy of France towards this country in commercial relations, and to as -constant a philippic on the unfriendly, illiberal, and persecuting -policy of Great Britain towards us in the same relations, we naturally -expect to find in a table which exhibits their respective systems, -numerous discriminations in that of France in our favor, and many -valuable privileges granted to us, which are refused to other foreign -countries; in that of Great Britain frequent discriminations to our -prejudice, and a variety of privileges refused to us which are granted -to other foreign nations. But an inspection of the table will satisfy -every candid mind, that the reverse of what has been supposed is truly -the case--that neither in France nor the French West Indies, is there -more than one solitary and important distinction in our favor, (I mean -the article of fish oil,) either with regard to our exports thither, our -imports from thence, or our shipping; that both in Great Britain and the -British West Indies, there are several material distinctions in our -favor, with regard both to our exports thither and to our imports from -thence, and, as it respects Great Britain, with regard also to our -shipping; that in the market of Great Britain, a preference is secured -to six of our most valuable staples, by considerably higher duties on -the rival articles of other foreign countries; that our navigation -thither is favored by our ships, when carrying our own productions, -being put upon as good a footing as their own ships, and by the -exemption of several of our productions, when carried in our ships, from -duties which are paid on the like articles of other foreign countries -carried in the ships of those countries; and that several of our -productions may be carried from the United States to the British West -Indies, while the like productions cannot be carried thither from any -other foreign country; and that several of the productions of those -countries may be brought from thence to the United States, which cannot -be carried from thence to any other foreign country. - - -TUESDAY, January 14. - -_Commerce of the United States._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions -on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries; when Mr. -MADISON rose in reply to Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. - -Mr. M. began by observing that he had expected, from what was intimated -yesterday, the sequel of what was then said against the resolutions -before the committee; but, as there was a silence in that quarter, and -no other member has risen on either side of the question, he himself -would request the attention of the committee. - -It had been much pressed that, in the discussion of this subject, it -should be viewed in its commercial relations only. He was perfectly -willing to meet every objection that could be urged on that ground; but, -as he conceived it impossible to do full justice to the interests of the -United States without taking some collateral considerations into view, -he should be obliged, in the course of his remarks, to point at the -political disposition and conduct of some of the nations of Europe -towards this country. - -The propositions immediately before the committee turned on the -question, whether any thing ought to be done at this time, in the way of -commercial regulations, towards vindicating and advancing our national -interests. Perhaps it might be made a question with some, whether, in -any case, legislative regulations of commerce were consistent with its -nature and prosperity. - -He professed himself to be a friend to the theory which gives to -industry a free course, under the impulse of individual interest and the -guidance of individual sagacity. He was persuaded that it would be happy -for all nations, if the barriers erected by prejudice, by avarice, and -by despotism, were broken down, and a free intercourse established among -them. Yet to this, as to all other general rules, there might be -exceptions; and the rule itself required what did not exist--that it -should be general. - -To illustrate this observation, he referred to the Navigation Act of -Great Britain, which, not being counterbalanced by any similar acts on -the part of rival nations, had secured to Great Britain no less than -eleven-twelfths of the shipping and seamen employed in her trade. It is -stated that, in 1660, when the British act passed, the foreign tonnage -was to the British, as one to four; in 1700, less than one to six; in -1725, as one to nineteen; in 1750, as one to twelve; in 1774, nearly the -same. At the commencement of the period, the tonnage was but 95,266 -tons; at the end of it, 1,136,162. - -As another illustration, he mentioned the case where two countries -happened to be in such a relation to each other, that the one, by -discouraging the manufactures of the other, might not only invigorate -its own, but transplant the manufacturers themselves. Here the gain -would be a clear one, and the effect evidently consistent with the -principle of the theory. - -To allow trade to regulate itself is not, therefore, to be admitted as a -maxim universally sound. Our own experience has taught us that, in -certain cases, it is the same thing with allowing one nation to regulate -it for another. Were the United States, in fact, in commercial -intercourse with one nation only, and to oppose no restrictions whatever -to a system of foreign restrictions, they would, of necessity, be -deprived of all share in the carriage, although their vessels might be -able to do it cheapest, as well as of the only resources for defence on -that side where they must always be most exposed to attack. A small -burden only in foreign ports on American vessels, and a perfect equality -of foreign vessels with our own in our own ports, would gradually banish -the latter altogether. - -The subject, as had been remarked on a former occasion, was not a novel -one; it was coeval with our political birth, and has at all times -exercised the thoughts of reflecting citizens. As early as the year -succeeding the peace, the effect of the foreign policy, which began to -be felt in our trade and navigation, excited universal attention and -inquietude. The first effort thought of was an application of Congress -to the States for a grant of power, for a limited time, to regulate our -foreign commerce, with a view to control the influence of unfavorable -regulations in some cases, and to conciliate an extension of favorable -ones in others. From some circumstances then incident to our situation, -and particularly from a radical vice in the then political system of the -United States, the experiment did not take effect. - -The States next endeavored to effect their purpose by separate but -concurrent regulations. Massachusetts opened a correspondence with -Virginia and other States, in order to bring about the plan. Here, -again, the effort was abortive. - -Out of this experience grew the measures which terminated in the -establishment of a Government competent to the regulation of our -commercial interests and the vindication of our commercial rights. - -As these were the first objects of the people in the steps taken for -establishing the present Government, they were universally expected to -be among the first fruits of its operation. In this expectation, the -public were disappointed. An attempt was made in different forms, and -received the repeated sanction of this branch of the Legislature, but -they expired in the Senate--not, indeed, as was alleged, from a dislike -to the attempt altogether, but the modifications given to it. It has not -appeared, however, that it was ever renewed in a different form in that -House, and for some time it has been allowed to sleep in both. - -If the reasons which originally prevailed against measures such as those -now proposed had weight in them, they can no longer furnish a pretext -for opposition. - -When the subject was discussed in the first Congress, at New York, it -was said that we ought to try the effect of a generous policy towards -Great Britain; that we ought to give time for negotiating a treaty of -commerce; that we ought to await the close of negotiations for -explaining and executing the treaty of peace. We have now waited a term -of more than four years. The treaty of peace remains unexecuted on her -part, though all pretext for delay has been removed by the steps taken -on ours; no treaty of commerce is either in train or in prospect; -instead of relaxations in former articles complained of, we suffer new -and aggravated violations of our rights. - -In the view which he took of the subject, he called the attention of the -committee particularly to the subject of navigation, of manufactures, -and of the discrimination proposed in the motion between some nations -and others. - -On the subject of navigation, he observed that we were prohibited by the -British laws from carrying to Great Britain the produce of other -countries from their ports, or our own produce from the ports of other -countries, or the produce of other countries from our own ports, or to -send our own produce from our own or other ports in the vessels of other -countries. This last restriction was, he observed, felt by the United -States at the present moment. It was, indeed, the practice of Great -Britain, sometimes to relax her Navigation Act so far, in time of war, -as to permit to neutral vessels a circuitous carriage; but, as yet, the -act was in full force against the use of them for transporting the -produce of the United States. - -On the other hand, the laws of the United States allowed Great Britain -to bring into their ports any thing she might please, from her own or -from other ports, and in her own or in other vessels. - -In the trade between the United States and the British West Indies, the -vessels of the former were under an absolute prohibition, whilst British -vessels in that trade enjoyed all the privileges granted to others, even -the most favored nations, in their trade with us. The inequality in this -case was the more striking, as it was evident that the West Indies were -dependent on the United States for the supplies essential to them, and -that the circumstances which secured to the United States this -advantage, enabled their vessels to transport the supplies on far better -terms than could be done by British vessels. - -It might be regarded (he observed) as a general rule, that, where one -nation consumed the necessaries of life produced by another, the -consuming nation was dependent on the producing one. On the other hand, -where the consumption consisted of superfluities, the producing nation -was dependent on the consuming one. The United States were in the -fortunate situation of enjoying both these advantages over Great -Britain. They supply a part of her dominions with the necessaries of -life; they consume superfluities which give bread to her people in -another part. Great Britain, therefore, is under a double dependence on -the commerce of the United States. She depends on them for what she -herself consumes; she depends on them for what they consume. In -proportion as a nation manufactures luxuries must be its disadvantages -in contests of every sort with its customers. The reason is obvious. -What is a luxury to the consumer is a necessary to the manufacturer. By -changing a fashion or disappointing a fancy only, bread may be taken -from the mouths of thousands whose industry is devoted to the -gratification of artificial wants. He mentioned the case of a petition -from a great body of buckle makers, presented a few years ago to the -Prince of Wales, complaining of the use of strings instead of buckles in -the shoes, and supplicating his Royal Highness, as giving the law to -fashions, to save them from want and misery by discontinuing the new -one. It was not (he observed) the Prince who petitioned the -manufacturers to continue to make the buckles, but the manufacturers -who petitioned their customer to buy them. The relation was similar -between the American customers and the British manufacturers; and if a -law were to pass for putting a stop to the use of their superfluities, -or a stop were otherwise to be put to it, it would quickly be seen from -which the distress and supplications would flow. Suppose that Great -Britain received from us alone the whole of the necessaries she -consumes, and that our market alone took off the luxuries with which she -paid for them: here the dependence would be complete, and we might -impose whatever terms we please on the exchange. This, to be sure, is -not absolutely the case; but, in proportion as it is the case, her -dependence is on us. The West Indies, however, are an example of -complete dependence. They cannot subsist without our food. They cannot -flourish without our lumber and our use of their rum. On the other hand, -we depend on them for not a single necessary, and can supply ourselves -with their luxuries from other sources. Sugar is the only article about -which there was ever a question; and he was authorized to say that there -was not, at the most, one-sixth of our consumption supplied from the -British islands. In time of war or famine the dependence of the West -Indies is felt in all its energy. It is sometimes such as to appeal to -our humanity as well as our interest for relief. At this moment the -Governor of Jamaica is making proclamation of their distresses. If ever, -therefore, there was a case where one country could dictate to another -the regulations of trade between them, it is the case of the United -States and the British West Indies. And yet the gentleman from South -Carolina (Mr. SMITH) had considered it as a favor that we were allowed -to send our provisions in British bottoms, and in these only, to the -West Indies. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 15. - -_Commerce of the United States._ - -A proposition being made to go into a Committee of the Whole on Mr. -MADISON's resolutions, - -The House then went into committee. - -Mr. FORREST, after a long pause, observed, that, as no other person -appeared disposed to rise on the occasion, although he felt himself -unequal to doing that justice to the subject which many others were, yet -he considered it his duty to offer a few remarks which had occurred to -him in the course of the debate. - -In all our discussions of commercial affairs, the principal point to be -kept in view was the promotion of the essential and permanent interests -of our country, keeping in mind this maxim, (as true in respect to -nations as individuals,) that there is no friendship in trade. He then -entered into a consideration of our commercial connection with Great -Britain, and observed that we should avoid letting our former -prejudices, or those arising from recent transactions, influence our -judgments. We should not regard the favoring of the French or British -nation, but study to do that which would tend to the promotion of our -own commerce and the interest of our own navigation. In this pursuit, we -must keep in view our relative situation with European nations, -particularly those of France and Great Britain, and more particularly -the latter, with whom the proposed resolutions contemplate a change. Of -all possible times, (said he,) I believe this the most improper to try -the experiment. - -If the British Government have been instrumental in letting the -Algerines loose upon us; if their privateers commit acts of piracy upon -our neutral flag, let it at least, in the first instance, be made matter -of negotiation. Neutral nations must suffer some inconvenience; and it -will be much better policy to come forward at once and say we are at -war. We will not submit to vexatious insults, when they are too much to -suffer, rather than make this commercial warfare, by which it is -impossible, in the course of human events, but that we must be much the -greatest sufferers; and how humiliating would it be, after trial, even -to propose to make it a drawn battle! - -Let us examine the subject. Of the whole fair trade of Great Britain, -taking their imports and exports into view, their trade with the United -States will be found to be one-sixth, or thereabouts. Take the imports -and exports of the United States, and you will find that full one-half -the value of our whole trade is with Great Britain and her dependencies. -Who will suffer most? She, by the interruption of one-sixth, with the -means of getting most of the articles we supply, on as good terms, from -other nations, with great internal sources of revenue, and a people used -to bear any taxes asked of them; or we, with an interruption of one-half -our trade and commerce, not so well off with respect to internal -resources, and the complaints of our citizens, not accustomed to heavy -taxation? Let those who rely upon the effect it will have on the English -manufacturers and artisans, look back to 1773 and 1774, and recollect -the effect it then had. - -But there is one circumstance that should have weight with every mind. -It will be found that three-fourths of all the impost revenue of this -country are derived from our commerce with the British. Shall we hazard -an entire loss of this revenue? And if lost or greatly interrupted, from -whence shall we supply its deficiency, without, at least, in their -minds, oppressing the people of this country? I am not a stockholder or -a bankholder. I am too poor to be either, and therefore can have no -separate interest in view, and, where I am known, I shall not be charged -with partiality to Great Britain; but I hope I am free from such -unwarrantable prejudices as to lead me into measures to the injury of my -country. - -I lay it down as a principle not to be controverted, that our -intercourse with Great Britain, in a commercial point, (I mean, putting -the mode of carriage out of account, and confining it to the importation -and exportation, and restrictions and bounties thereon,) is as favorable -as we can expect, and, taken in the aggregate, full as favorable as with -France, their Navigation Act excepted. - -With respect to navigation, I have long thought it ought not to be -submitted to; but are we to expect, at a moment like this, acting (as -they will certainly believe we shall) under the impulse of resentment, -they will waive an atom of their Navigation Act to the result of our -resolutions? It is vain. Let us not hazard that which is certain, which -the safeguard of experience has proved, for that we know not of. - -It has been mentioned as a grievance that our produce is sent to France, -Holland, Spain, Portugal, &c., and that our imports are, in a great -degree, confined to Great Britain. Our merchants must pay their debts, -and surely it is for their interest to sell their articles for the -highest price they will bring, and purchase where they can obtain -cheapest. Our produce is sent to those countries to pay our debts in -Great Britain. - -There has been nothing to lead me to a judgment how the blanks are to be -filled. If, with such high duties as to prohibit the articles, our chief -source of revenue will be wiped off, and the consequence may, nay, must -be, direct taxation. If low, it will only exhibit, without gratifying, a -resentment, and the consumers of these articles, the yeomanry of this -country, will have to pay the tax. If it is said that it is intended to -encourage our own factories, let us select those which we can -manufacture, and lay prohibitory duties on the foreign articles. - -Mr. F. reprobated the idea of suffering partial or merely political -motives to influence in the discussion of the subject. Commercial -subjects ought to be considered in an independent point of view. He -hoped, therefore, that the committee would endeavor to divest themselves -of every incidental impression, originating in impulses from particular -events, and contemplate the question simply on its own merits. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS declared that, in the course of this discussion, he had -not heard one single argument advanced which, admitting the premises to -be true, could persuade him to give his consent to the first of the -resolutions. It was possible that he might agree to some of those that -followed. He was perfectly convinced that a judicious system of -regulations would be of infinite advantage to the maritime interest of -America. He was of opinion that the first resolution was by far too -indefinite. The substance of the whole arguments advanced on both sides -tended only to establish a fact, which was already perfectly well known, -that the Governments of Europe act, in regard to the commerce of the -United States, just as they think proper. The lesson was a very good -one, and he trusted that, with a proper attention to temporary -circumstances, this country would improve by it. - -Mr. MADISON regarded the objection of the gentleman as entirely of a -new kind. He had refused his consent to the first of the resolutions, -because it was indefinite. But the propositions laid before the House a -few days ago with respect to the Algerines were fully as indefinite, and -yet the gentleman who spoke last had recommended them. The order of -procedings in the present question is perfectly candid and regular, -consonant to the practice of the House, and the practice of the -gentleman himself. - -Mr. AMES wished, that gentlemen, instead of indefinite declamation, -would lay their finger on each particular wrong that Britain had done to -us. He did not know of any particular advantage that we had derived in -our commerce with France. He wished to discountenance a spirit of -revenge, and to ascertain on what side the benefits of our commerce lay, -and wherein they consisted. He did not like unfair comparisons, - -Mr. NICHOLAS said, that he would not, at this time of day, attempt to -detain the House any further than by just observing that the practice of -_comparisons_ had originated among the gentlemen who opposed the -resolutions. - -At this stage, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again. - - -THURSDAY, January 16. - -_Commerce of the United States._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions -on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries, when - -Mr. NICHOLAS rose and spoke as follows: - -Mr. Chairman: I feel a great embarrassment in speaking on this subject, -from a distrust of my ability to treat properly its acknowledged -importance, and from the apparent expectation of the audience. I feel -too, as the member from Maryland who spoke yesterday did, from the -imputation of motives, well knowing that the Representatives of my -country are industriously reported to be enemies of the Government, and -promoters of anarchy, and that the present measure is imputed to these -principles. It is somewhat remarkable, that farther north we are charged -with selfishness, and want of attachment to the general welfare, for a -supposed opposition to measures of the import of the present. I mention -this contradictory inference, to show that the shameful designs charged -upon us, are not proved by the fact, and to place the guilt where it -only exists, in the malignity of the accuser. - -It is a commonly received opinion, that trade should be intrusted to the -direction of those immediately interested in it, and that the actual -course of it is the best which it could take; this principle is by no -means a safe one, and, as applied to the trade of America, is extremely -fallacious. It can never be just, where the beginning and growth of a -commerce have not been free from all possible constraint, as to its -direction; as that can never be called a business of election which has -been created under foreign influence. The manner in which America was -first peopled, and the nurture she received from Great Britain, afford -the most striking contrast to the requisite before mentioned. The first -inhabitants of America were educated in Great Britain, and brought with -them all the wants of their own country, to be gratified chiefly by the -productions of that country. Aided by British capital, in the settlement -of the wilderness, and depending on the same means for the conveyance of -its produce to a place of consumption, it was inevitable, that the -demand for British commodities should keep pace with the improvement of -the country. In the commencement of American population and its early -stages, there does not appear to have been a chance of comparing the -advantages of commercial connection with different countries, and it -will be found that in its progress, it was still more restrained. In the -last years of the dependence of America on Great Britain, the principal -part of America was occupied by large trading companies, composed of -people in Great Britain, and conducted by factors, who sunk large sums -in the hands of the farmers, to attach them to their respective stores, -by which means competition was precluded, and a dependence on the -supplies of those stores completely established. Since the Revolution, -the business has been conducted by persons in the habit of dependence on -Great Britain, and who had no other capital than the manufactures of -that country furnished on credit. The business is still almost wholly -conducted by the same means. In no stage of its growth then, does there -appear to have been a power in the consumer to have compared the -productions of Great Britain with those of any other country, as to -their quality or price, and therefore there is no propriety in calling -the course of trade, the course of its choice. - -The subject before the committee naturally divides itself into -navigation and manufactures, in speaking of which, I shall offer some -other considerations, to show that the same effects are by no means to -be expected from the greatest commercial wisdom in individuals, which -are in the power of the general concert of the community; the one having -in view profit on each separate transaction, the other, promoting an -advantageous result to the whole commerce of the country. - -In considering the importance of navigation to all countries, but -especially to such as have so extensive a production of bulky articles -as America, I think I shall show that the last observation is accurately -right, and that the interest of the whole community, not those only who -are the carriers, but those also who furnish the object of carriage, -positively demands a domestic marine, equal to its whole business; and -that, even if it is to exist under rates higher than those of foreign -navigation, it is to be preferred. In circumstances of tolerable -equality, that can never however entirely be the case; for, in the -carriage of the produce of one country, by the shipping of another, to -any other place than the country to which the shipping belongs, there is -considerably more labor employed than would have been by domestic -shipping, as the return to their own country is to be included. On this -ground, it may be confidently asserted, that where the materials of -navigation are equally attainable, they will always be more -advantageously employed by the country for whose use they are intended; -and that if, under such circumstances, another country is employed as -the carrier, it must be under the influence of some other cause than -interest, as it respects that particular business. A dependence on the -shipping of another country tends to establish a place of deposit in -that country of those exports which are for the use of others, if it is -at a convenient distance from them. The superintendence of property -makes short voyages desirable for the owner, and the connection that -soon takes place between the money capital of a country and its shipping -interests, greatly strengthens the vortex. The attainment of wealth -beyond the demands of navigation, leads to an interest in the cargo -itself, and then the agency in selling to the consumer becomes -important. It is apparent that, as the final sale depends on the wants -of the purchaser, all intermediate expenses of care and agency must be -taken from the price to which the maker would be entitled. Our own -commerce has involved this loss, in a remarkable degree, and it has gone -to an enormous extent, from a necessity of submitting to the perfidy of -agents, arising from a dependence established by means of the so much -boasted credit. - -That there is this tendency in the employment of foreign shipping, is -not only proved by the commercial importance of Holland, which became -thus, from her naval resources, the storehouse of Europe, without -furnishing any thing from her own productions, but also from the varied -experience of America. Before the Revolution, every thing for European -consumption was carried to Great Britain, but, since America has -possessed shipping of her own, and in the Northern States, there has -been an accession of capital, the export to England is reduced one-half. -It is true, indeed, that there is still nearly one-half of what she -receives, that is re-exported, but it will be found that she still -retains a proportioned share of those influences which formerly carried -the whole. Great Britain, under all the discouragements of our laws, -which, we are told by the mercantile members of the committee, amount to -a prohibition where they have any rivals, did, until the European war, -possess one-third of the foreign tonnage employed in America. This has -been supported by the dependence into which the Southern States were -placed by credit, and here, as in every other step of the connection, -this engine extorts advantages from us, beyond the compensation which is -always secured in the first advance. If there wanted other proof of the -British interest in the American navigation being supported in direct -opposition to our interests, it may be found in the comparative state of -the tonnage employed, where it appears that, after the protecting duties -once had their effect, the additional tonnage, to a considerable amount, -has been entirely American, and that the British tonnage has remained -very nearly stationary, and in proportion to their undue influence. - -In time of war, in addition to the inconveniences before stated, which -are enhanced by throwing the trade from its accustomed channel, there -are great and important losses brought on a country by this kind of -dependence. If your carriers are parties to the war, you are subjected -to the war freight and war insurance on your cargo, and you are cut off -from all the markets to which they are hostile; and, indeed, from our -experience in the present war, I may say you are cut off from the market -of your carriers themselves, as it would have been impossible for -British vessels to have escaped in our seas last summer. To what extent -this loss goes may be seen from a calculation in the Secretary of -State's report on the fisheries, making the proportion of war to that of -peace in the one hundred years, as forty-two to one hundred; and on that -calculation there can be no hesitation in determining that the interest -of the farmers requires that this foreign dependence should end here. - -But the European war, by making a temporary exclusion of British -shipping, has already brought on us the greatest mischief of such a -regulation: and, by the encouragement it has afforded to our shipping, -almost completed the remedy; so that we have reason to consider this as -a fortunate period. But, it is not merely the advancement of our marine -that is contemplated by the present resolutions; the security of that -which we have is also dependent on them. The danger from the Algerines -has been estimated in this House at five per cent. on the vessel and -cargo, but the whole encouragement to our own shipping in our existing -laws consists in the one-tenth additional duty on goods imported in -foreign vessels. Whenever there shall be a European peace, which cannot -be far distant, the whole difference between the two sums will be a -direct encouragement on British ships, and will probably be equal to two -freights. Do gentlemen rely on the precarious prospect of building -frigates, and the more precarious service to be rendered by them when -built, so much as to neglect any other regulations for the safety of our -shipping when they are so much in their power? - -Having shown that the actual state of our commerce is by no means the -most beneficial, as far as navigation is concerned, I will proceed to -consider the benefits derived from the consumption of those European -manufactures which form the principal part of the stores of America. And -here it may safely be said, that national policy by no means justifies -the almost exclusive preference given to those of Great Britain. It is -not always true that the commodity which is bought for least money is -the best bargain, for the means of payment form an important -consideration in all traffic, and accommodations in it may more than -counterbalance an inequality of price. If one man will receive an -article in exchange which you can sell to no other, it will certainly be -a saving to deal with him at a high advance on his property. If there -are countries which would become great consumers of American produce, on -the terms of reciprocal consumption, and we find a difficulty, as is -often the case, in vending that produce, is it not of great national -importance to excite those acts which are to become the foundation of -the connection, even if, in the first instance, it is to be attended -with inconvenience and loss? France may be made a connection of this -sort. She is at this time almost, if not quite, on a footing with Great -Britain in the consumption of American products, and every hand which -shall receive employment from us will add to her wants. We are told that -it is of no less importance to us to find a country which can supply us -advantageously than one which will consume our productions; and that, as -commerce is no longer carried on by barter, it is no less beneficial to -sell in one country and buy in another, than if we could complete the -exchange in the same country. This might be true, if your production was -limited, and the demand for it certain; but, with a greatly improving -agriculture, and some risk in our markets, the object is important. -Great Britain being the factory of those things which would make her -most dependent on the agricultural interest, and the national wealth -being probably at the greatest height, there is no expectation that her -consumption will increase. On the other hand, as labor is now to receive -its direction in France to the manufacturing arts, so far as concerns -America, you will take from the agricultural strength a large class of -people, and by that means create a dependence on you, at least to the -amount of their own consumption, and the wealth you will diffuse will -give ability to thousands who are now too poor to bid for your -commodities. Nor is it probable that you will purchase this important -benefit on very disadvantageous terms; for it is agreed on all hands -that many important arts are well understood there, and that labor, -which forms the principal part of the cost of most articles, is -considerably cheaper in France than in England. - -Another very important operation of a discrimination in favor of France -will be that, by encouraging liberal industry, you may put an end to -some practices which, in the existing state of consumption, greatly -depreciate our commodities. I mean the public provision made in -granaries, and the supply from them in times of scarcity, which destroys -the competition that raises every thing to its just value. Different -consequences have been foretold as likely to result from those -measures, to which I shall give a short examination. We are told that -the preference long since given by our laws has been equal to a -prohibition of British vessels, and that, to the extent to which it has -gone, the best effects have been produced. To secure this operation from -a recent attack, and at the same time to extend it to some branches of -trade, to which its principles would equally extend, is the object of -the marine resolutions. We have no reason to apprehend bad consequences -from an action which has hitherto had good consequences. As to the -increased duties on manufactures, I think the prospect in no way -threatening; for, if there should be found no country to supply our -wants on better terms, the diminution of consumption will be only in -proportion to the duty. This can be by no means alarming, considered as -the worst consequence of the measure to men with whom the impost is the -favorite mode of collecting the revenue, at a time when the public wants -are equal to any possible produce. If there shall be found a competitor -with Great Britain for our consumption, the great object will be -attained, as it must be accompanied by a corresponding consumption of -American productions. But we are told that there will be a conflict of -commercial regulations between this country and Great Britain, and that -the consequence will be, the loss of the market she affords us. The -probable consequences of such a conflict will best determine whether it -is to be expected, as it will commence, on her part as well as ours, -with a view to consequences. The danger which she can alone apprehend is -the loss of the market for her manufactures; and to obviate this, it -would be absurd to widen the breach between us, as that would tend, in a -direct proportion, to the establishment of unfriendly habits and -manufactures, either here or in other countries, which would rival her -own. If, however, the ultimate advantage would justify such measures, -the immediate distress of her people would forbid it. The American trade -must be the means of distributing bread to several hundred thousand -persons, whose occupations would be wholly ended with the trade, and the -Government is by no means in a situation to bear their discontent. Their -navigation and manufactures draw many important ingredients from America -which would be lost to them. The creditors of the people of America, to -an immense amount, would be deprived of the remittances which depend on -a friendly intercourse. On the whole, it would add to the disorders of -the Government among those who, perhaps, have heretofore contributed to -its support, without gratifying any thing but an arrogant resentment. -But we are told that our own citizens would be equal sufferers, and are -more to be injured by being stopped in a career of rapid improvement. It -will be hard to anticipate any real misfortune to America in such a -contest, unless the temporary loss of indulgencies, which are by no -means necessary, can be so called. The consumption of Great Britain is, -according to the most friendly calculation, not more than one-third of -our purchases from her, and, therefore, the national wealth, independent -of the gratification of our appetites, will receive an immense addition, -and a vast fund will be procured to make lasting and valuable -improvements, which would be degraded by comparison with the gewgaws of -a day. It is to be remarked that the diminution of our exports would be -divided among large classes of people, and in all cases forms a -deduction from the annual income, rather than a total loss. This will -result from the various objects of American industry and the division of -the markets of its produce. This forms an important difference between -America and Great Britain, in an estimate of the effects of a rupture -between the two countries. In my opinion, the habits of the Southern -States are such as to require the control which is said to be the -consequence of these measures. Under the facility offered by the modes -of trade before spoken of, and the credit which is said to be so -beneficial, they have not only involved themselves in debt, but have -contracted habits which, with the power of gratification, must always -keep them so. We did hope that the administration of justice would have -corrected the evil, but we now find that it cannot be corrected but by -entire changes. It is founded in the policy of the merchant himself, and -this circumstance is enough to present to the minds of the committee a -long train of dependent mischiefs. It is a fact, supported by the best -evidence, that our merchants who get their goods from the manufacturer -pay as much for them as the shopkeeper who buys at Baltimore or -Philadelphia. This is one of the consequences of the want of credit -which always will follow a reliance on collection from farmers; and -there can be no doubt that the merchant is indemnified for his disgrace -as well as his advance. The result of the whole train of indulgence is, -that our goods are bought at an advance from a half to one-fourth of -what they could be afforded for in cash sales. Nor does the mischief -stop here. It brings a subjection which materially affects the sale of -our produce. I do believe, myself, that the war with Great Britain did -not bring half the mischief on us that their credit has; and I very much -suspect a credit for consumption will always be found equally -mischievous. It by no means resembles money loans, as is insinuated by -the gentleman from South Carolina, by freeing a man's own resources for -any other use. It is certain that there is no other safe regulation of a -farmer's expenses than his income; and experience every day proves that, -when so regulated, they always fall short of the income, and that, when -they depend on credit, they always exceed it, and thereby subject future -revenue. Lessening the importation of foreign manufactures will increase -our household fabrics, which experience has proved to be highly -profitable, as the labor is done by a part of the community of little -power in any other application. Regular efforts in this way have been, -in my country, certainly productive of independence. - -Mr. GOODHUE.--Mr. Chairman: The propositions now before us having been -considered by several gentlemen, who have already spoken, and who have -given such a particular detail of calculations, I shall confine myself -to some general observations on the subject. - -The gentleman from Maryland has made an observation which struck me very -forcibly as applied to the subject before us, because it is a maxim to -which all mankind have assented, and upon which all mankind continually -practise--it was this: "there is no friendship in trade;" and it maybe -added, as a necessary consequence, there ought to be no hatred in trade. -By following a path founded upon so obvious a maxim as the foregoing, we -may be sure of a right guide, but if we deviate from it, we are in -danger of being led into unforeseen error and mischief. It is -unquestionably our duty to attend to the navigation and commerce of our -country, and give it every proper encouragement which time and -circumstances admit; this has ever been my wish and my conduct. - -This object, so important and desirable, must be effected by fixed -principles and regulations, such as giving our vessels a decided -preference in our own ports above the ships of every other nation -whatever, by paying less tonnage and other duties; by suffering no -foreign ships to bring into the United States the productions of any -other country than the one to which they belong; and by prohibiting -foreign ships from coming to the United States from those places where -our own ships are prohibited. - -These are the fixed principles and regulations by one or all of which -our navigation and commerce can only be promoted, and must never be -deviated from, when adopted in favor of any one nation whatever--unless -it be in return for some special advantage granted to us by any -particular nation as an equivalent. Hitherto, our Government has -proceeded to distinguish foreign ships, only by making them pay greater -tonnage and duties than our own. If circumstances required it, and the -time is judged a seasonable one, I shall be willing to proceed further. - -Let us examine what advantages we enjoy in consequence of any commercial -treaties we have already formed, for the propositions before us are -proposed to affect only those nations with whom we have no treaties. We -have commercial treaties with Prussia, Sweden, France, and Holland, and -in the dominions of neither of those powers have our ships or the -produce of this country (except in the single article of our oil in -France) been admitted on any more favorable terms than the ships or -produce of any other nation; and for this obvious reason, because our -treaties only ensure the advantages they may grant to the most favored -nation; and, being circumstanced in such a manner as not judging it for -their interest to distinguish any one by its favors, we are left only in -the enjoyment of a trade with them on the terms common to all other -nations. This being the case, I would not give one farthing to have like -treaties formed with every other nation, for they have not been, and -never can be, of any service to us; if we expect to derive any advantage -from commercial treaties, we must stipulate for some certain good, for -some other good which we may grant them in return. - -Mr. CLARK differed from many members who had spoken before him, in the -view they took of the subject; he conceived it ought to be considered in -a political light. We had many wrongs to complain of, and we should -endeavor to obtain redress. The English have violated our treaty, just -after it was ratified, by taking away our negroes, and since by holding -our posts; they have also set the savages on our backs, and have not -they let loose the Algerines upon us? Shall we sit still and bear it? -How can we help it? it is asked. They will retaliate, we are told. How -retaliate? Will they refuse to sell us their manufactures? He remembered -that, even in old times, a non-importation agreement made them repeal -their stamp act. We have surely as well now as we had then a right not -to buy their goods; we don't want to cram our provisions down their -throats, or to force them to buy our lumber. During the non-importation -agreement, we did not perish with cold; we found, even then, that among -ourselves we could make wherewith to clothe ourselves; we are surely as -able to do it now. We then gained our point; we should now be much more -powerful with the same weapon: many of her manufacturers are already -starving for want of employment. We should add greatly to their -distress, and soon bring the Government to their senses, and they will -be glad to enter into a commercial treaty with us. - -The balance of trade with Great Britain is much against us; and by -carrying to Portugal and Spain what we send to them, we should receive -cash in return. France will not always be in a storm, and a supply of -the manufactured articles we want may soon be received from that -quarter. - -He did not see to what purpose calculations three hours long had been -brought forward. It was very well for merchants to calculate in their -counting houses; but he conceived the Legislature should determine the -question upon political considerations. He concluded by remarking, that -he believed by this time the committee must pretty clearly see that he -was in favor of the resolutions. - -Mr. PARKER considered the resolutions on the table as indefinite and -unintelligible. If revenue is the object, we should remember the remark -of _Dr. Swift_, that in the arithmetic of taxation, two and two do not -always make four, but sometimes only _one_. He thought there was a -jarring in the third resolution, which contradicted the first. The -leading clause of the first resolution, which has occasioned so long a -debate, is in these words: "That the interest of the United States would -be promoted by further restrictions and higher duties, in certain cases, -on the manufactures and navigation of foreign nations employed in the -commerce of the United States, than those now imposed." The third -resolution which Mr. P. referred to, is in these words: "That the duty -on vessels belonging to the nations having commercial treaties with the -United States, ought to be reduced to ---- per ton." The resolutions -meant either too much, or nothing. He would move to amend the first -resolution, but that he hoped it would be altogether cast aside. - -Mr. S. SMITH (of Maryland) rose and apologized to the committee for -presuming to intrude upon them a second time by the delivery of his -sentiments. He said that a personal attack had been made yesterday upon -him in that House. It had met him out of doors, and had gone into the -world. After he had done speaking yesterday, a member had risen, and -held forth as a fundamental observation, that "gentlemen possessing -capitals of their own were in favor of the propositions; but that -dealers upon credit were against them." When this remark was made, as he -had but just sat down from delivering his negative to the resolutions, -he could not help thinking himself aimed at as one of those dealers upon -credit. [Here the member referred to rose, and solemnly declared that a -personal allusion to Mr. SMITH had never entered his mind.] Mr. S. went -on to observe, that the whole assertion was erroneous. The merchants of -America are men of liberal sentiments--more so, he believed, than -merchants of any other part of the world. They are not to be biased by -the petty motives of interest, in prejudice to the public interest of -their country. The gentleman whom he referred to had spoke of an -alarming British influence in some of the commercial cities of America. -He had alleged that merchants, by their connection with Britain, would -be under its influence; but there was no such thing. In this country, -merchants studied the constitution, and were attached to it. In other -countries, they minded only profit. As a reflection had been thrown on -merchants who dealt upon credit, he should take leave to observe that -credit was a very good thing. As to himself, he had before the war -began, acquired, by his industry, as much property as placed him beyond -the necessity of credit. By the war he was reduced to nothing. After the -peace, he again began as he set out at first. By the same industry and -the same talents, he had once more acquired independence. By the British -buccaneers, he had lost as much, since the present war began, as the -gentleman to whom he rose in reply, would think a tolerable fortune for -dividing among his sons; yet he could still spare time from his business -for the service of his country. - -The question was then taken to postpone the subject to the first Monday -in March next; and it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 51, nays 47, -as follows: - -YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, Thomas Blount, Thomas P. -Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Abraham Clark, Isaac Coles, Henry Dearborn, -George Dent, William Findlay, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, -Nicholas Gilman, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, William B. Grove, -George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, Daniel Heister, John -Hunter, William Irvine, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, -James Madison, Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Peter -Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Nathaniel Niles, -Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, John Patton, Andrew Pickens, Francis -Preston, Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John S. Sherburne, John -Smilie, Israel Smith, Thomas Spring, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van -Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Benjamin Williams, and -Joseph Winston. - -NAYS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, -Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, Thomas -Claiborne, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Jonathan Dayton, -Samuel Dexter, Thomas Fitzsimons, Uriah Forrest, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel -Gilbert, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Samuel Griffin, -Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten, John -Wilkes Kittera, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Francis Malbone, -Joseph McDowell, William Vans Murray, Jeremiah Smith, Samuel Smith, -William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George Thatcher, Uriah -Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg -Wadsworth, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, John Watts, Paine Wingate, -and Richard Winn. - - -Monday, January 20. - -_Algerine Affairs._ - -The Committee of Ways and Means, appointed, pursuant to the resolutions -of the House, on the communications from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES relative to Algiers, brought in a report, which was twice read, -and referred to the Committee of the whole House on the state of the -Union. - -_Ordered_, That it be printed for the use of the members. - -The report states that the naval force for the protection of the trade -of the United States, shall consist of four ships of forty-four guns -each, 18 and 9 pounders, and two of twenty guns each. The aggregate sum -wanted for this purpose is estimated at six hundred thousand dollars; to -raise which, one per cent. additional duty is proposed to be laid on -imported goods now paying seven and one-half per cent.; five per cent. -additional on stone, marble, &c.; and on all stone and earthenware, -three cents additional; on salt, per bushel, six cents additional, per -ton, on all vessels of the United States employed in foreign trade; and -twenty-five cents additional, per ton, on all other vessels. - -On motion of Mr. FITZSIMONS, an addition was made to the Committee of -Ways and Means; so that it now consists of a member from every State, -who are to make another report respecting the fortifying the ports and -harbors of the United States. - -_Ordered_, That Mr. GILMAN, Mr. WATTS, Mr. ORR, Mr. PATTON, Mr. BALDWIN, -and Mr. ISRAEL SMITH, be added to the committee appointed to report to -this House the naval force adequate to the protection of the commerce of -the United States against the Algerine corsairs, together with an -estimate of the expense, and the ways and means of defraying the same. - - -TUESDAY, January 28. - -_French Refugees._ - -A petition of Peter Gauvain and Louis Dubourg, in behalf of the French -refugees of Cape François, now at Baltimore, was presented to the House -and read, praying that Congress will speedily decide on the memorial of -the committee appointed by the Legislature of Maryland, to draw for, and -distribute, the moneys granted by that State for the relief of the -French emigrants from the Island of St. Domingo. - -Mr. MURRAY moved that it should be referred to the Committee of the -Whole on the state of the Union, along with the report of the select -committee upon it. He thought it would be an act of humanity to relieve -the persons mentioned in the petition. And if that was improper, he -thought that the next greatest act of humanity which could be done, was -to relieve them from suspense. - -Mr. CLARK was of opinion that the matter should be instantly taken up, -as the fund for their relief expired on the 2d of February next. - -Mr. HUNTER, from South Carolina, mentioned a remarkable exertion of -benevolence respecting persons of this kind which had taken place in -that State. The motion was agreed to, and the House directly resolved -itself into a committee on the question. - -It was then moved and seconded, that the PRESIDENT be authorized to pay -$10,000 of the public money for the use of the refugees, and to -negotiate the payment of it, with the Ministry of France. - -Mr. BOUDINOT was convinced, that, by the constitution, the House had a -right to give it in the first instance. He considered the committee as -too confined, and thought that it should have comprehended all the -people of this sort in North America. Many of these people since winter -set in, must have perished of cold and want in the streets of -Philadelphia, but for the benevolence of some well-disposed people. He -urged the committee, in the most pathetic language, to extend immediate -and effectual relief. - -Mr. S. SMITH was confident that Congress would be repaid with thanks by -the Republic of France. He said that a supply of powder and ball had -been sent from one of the Southern States to St. Domingo, and that the -price had been punctually and thankfully repaid. Santhonax and Polverel -had been recalled, who were the authors of all the mischief that had -happened. The refugees expected to return to their settlements before -the first of May, and they would then be very able and very willing to -repay the money themselves. - -Mr. SMILIE recommended the entering into a negotiation with the French -Ambassador, for securing payment of what sum should be voted. - -Mr. CLARK hoped that the motion would instantly pass. In a case of this -kind, we were not to be tied up by the constitution. Were Algerines cast -upon the mercy of America, in such a situation, he would pay them the -same tribute of humanity. The French Ambassador had restricted his -services to a particular class of people. It was not the business of the -House, whether the refugees at Baltimore were democrats or aristocrats. -They were men; and, as such were entitled to compassion and to relief. - -Mr. S. SMITH, in reply to Mr. SMILIE, said, that Mr. Genet, when -solicited on behalf of these people, made answer that he was not -authorized on the part of the Republic to give them any thing, but sent -them $2,000 from himself. - -Mr. SMILIE replied that Mr. SMITH had mistaken him; he did not wish to -seek money from Mr. Genet. But he thought it would be singular to give -away so large a sum, without endeavoring to secure the approbation of -the French Minister, as a step towards repayment. - -Mr. DEXTER had formerly entertained scruples, but he now approved the -motion. - -Mr. NICHOLAS did not approve the motion in its original shape, nor did -he like it better for its being now altered into a motion for -authorizing the PRESIDENT to pay the money. Mr. N. expressed, in the -strongest and most unequivocal language, his compassion for the -sufferers; but, as he had not seen a way pointed out of relieving them, -agreeably to the constitution, he recommended a shorter one. Out of the -liberal compensation which the members of that House received from the -country, he thought that the sum wanted might easily be subscribed. He -did not know whether the Republic would thank us for helping them; -perhaps they might be accounted rebels. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS proposed a second amendment of the original motion. - -Mr. NICHOLAS replied: If this thing goes down at all, it should be as an -act of charity, and marked in giving, that it is going beyond our power, -but that, from a knowledge of the universal wish of our constituents, -and a sense of our general obligations to France, we have granted the -money. - -Mr. SCOTT pressed for the relief in reference to the citizens of -Baltimore. If they were invaded by an army, we certainly would assist -them; and where is the difference, (added Mr. S.,) whether they be an -army of fighters, or an army of eaters. We must relieve them, to be -sure. - -Mr. S. SMITH said that these distressed people were all women and -children, except three old men. The boys who were old enough, had been -bound apprentices. The men had been enlisted by the advice of Mr. Genet, -who said the Republic wanted recruits. He had likewise obtained two -ships for five hundred of the refugees who wanted to go to France. Genet -was able to do nothing more for them, as the $2,000 that he gave, were -out of his own pocket. It had been alleged that there was no precedent -for relieving these people. He mentioned two: The Americans in captivity -at Algiers had been assisted by the British Consul. Some years ago, the -crew of an American vessel had been shipwrecked on the coast of -Portugal. They were assisted with the utmost generosity by a private -gentleman. In both cases, Congress thankfully repaid the money advanced. -The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) had offered his salary, but -the idea had not been supported, so that it went for nothing. And are we -(said Mr. S.) to stand up here, and tell the world that we dare not -perform an act of benevolence? Is this to be the style of an American -Congress? The gentleman from Virginia had said that perhaps these people -would be considered as traitors by the Republic. Were women and -fatherless children to be regarded as traitors? Mr. S. was extremely -affected, and apologized more than once to the House for the warmth with -which he spoke. He said that himself and several others who had -witnessed the scene of distress, were surprised; the gentleman did not -feel as they did. - -Mr. MADISON possessed constitutional scruples. He thought that the -gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) would not have injured his cause -by a greater moderation of language, nor his credit for benevolence by -not saying that his sympathy arose chiefly from being an eye-witness. - -At last, the SPEAKER proposed to the committee an amendment, which met -the ideas of the members, and the resolution passed, as follows: - -_Resolved_, That a sum not exceeding ---- dollars be appropriated for -the support of such of the inhabitants of St. Domingo, resident within -the United States, as shall be found in want of such support. - -That a regular account of the moneys so expended be kept; and that the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be requested to obtain a credit therefor, -in the accounts between the French Republic and the United States. - -_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a bill in -conformity with the foregoing resolution, and providing for the due -application of the moneys aforesaid; and that Mr. AMES, Mr. TRACY, and -Mr. DENT, be the said committee. - - -THURSDAY, February 6. - -_War with Algiers._ - -The resolution being read for building four ships of 44 guns and two -ships of 20 guns-- - -Mr. MADISON rose to inquire whether there was in the public stores of -the United States, a sufficient quantity of cedar and live oak for -building the proposed six vessels? He was answered that there was not. -Mr. M. then observed, that it was evident this fleet could not be ready -for effective service in the course of the present year. He imagined -that there was another resolution, precedent as to the time of voting -it, which ought to be before the committee. The resolution to which he -alluded, was that assigning a sum of money to buy a cessation of -hostilities from the Regency of Algiers. He was of opinion that the -project of fitting out an armed squadron was liable to many solid -objections. There were two points of light in which this subject might -be surveyed. The first of these was, whether the Algerines acted from -their own impulse in this matter? In that case, they were known to be in -the habit of selling a peace; and, if they are willing to do so, he -fancied that it might be purchased for less money than the armament -would cost. On the other hand, if they do not act from their own -impulse, but upon the instigation of Britain, we may depend upon it that -they cannot be bought. Britain will keep them hostile. There is -infinitely more danger of a British war from the fitting out of ships -than from the resolution on the report of the Secretary of State. The -distance which the ships would have to sail is not less than three -thousand miles, and their number is too small for a decisive advantage. -The combined powers would embrace the equipment of these ships as an -excellent opportunity to pick a quarrel with the United States. Mr. M. -expressed his doubts with regard to the propriety of this measure, -because the expense would be immense, and there was no certainty of -reaping any benefit from it. - -Mr. CLARK was anxious to state his doubts on this subject, that -gentlemen, who, by their habits of life, had met with opportunities of -better information than he possessed, might correct him where he was -wrong. In the first place, the ships would be too small in point of -number to be of any kind of importance, amidst the numerous navies of -Europe. The distance from any friendly port, where, in case of -accidents, they might repair, was likewise very great. It was to be -expected that, when they fell in with British ships of war, that the -latter would endeavor to search them for prohibited cargoes, and for -seamen, because they were in the practice of impressing their own -countrymen wherever they could find them. This would produce a quarrel. -There was a scheme which occurred to him, and which he judged would be -less expensive and more effectual. This was, to hire the Portuguese to -cruise against the Algerines. He understood that the Court of Lisbon -desired to keep her ships of war in actual service. The British have -been in the habit of building frigates for the service of the Algerines, -and, as he was informed, mariners, at a distance upon sea could -distinguish in what country vessels were built by their construction. -Hence it would be difficult for the captain of an American frigate to -ascertain at sea a British ship of war from an Algerine. He had an -objection to the establishment of a fleet, because, when once it had -been commenced, there would be no end of it. We must then have a -Secretary of the Navy, and a swarm of other people in office, at a -monstrous expense. If we build six ships this year, we should next year -find it necessary to build six more, and so on. The combined powers -would find a much better pretence for a war by this armament than from -the resolutions on the Report of the Secretary. Mr. C. closed his -speech, which was heard with great attention, by observing that he rose -principally to submit his opinions on this question as hints for those -who were better qualified to form a judgment on the subject than -himself. - -Mr. BALDWIN expressed his doubts as to every part of this subject. He -had not been able to gain any information that was satisfactory. To -block up the Mediterranean was, he believed, impracticable. Bribery -alone could purchase security from the Algerines. Spain and Britain had -always found this method the cheapest. He had much confidence in the -gentleman who had been employed to go as an Envoy to Algiers from this -country. He was a thorough man. Mr. B. had yet formed no decided -opinion, and could wish to suspend his judgment till he learned the -issue of the present application to the Dey. If bribery would not do, he -should certainly vote for equipping a fleet. - -Mr. NICHOLAS feared that we were not a match for the Algerines. A small -number of sailors were sufficient to navigate one of their ships, and -they had a militia to man them who were innumerable. He had not been -able to form an exact opinion, but he was afraid that we were not a -match for them by sea. - -Mr. S. SMITH rose chiefly to answer the interrogatories proposed by Mr. -CLARK, as to what harbors in Europe American ships could retire to for -shelter? In an early part of his life, Mr. S. said that he had been in -that part of the world, and could assure the House that there was no -want of proper harbors to refit or obtain provisions in. The first he -mentioned was Toulon; Marseilles, likewise, had a most excellent harbor, -and there was no doubt that our vessels would be received there in the -most friendly way, as the Algerines had lately declared war against the -Republic of France. Spain had, likewise, several excellent -ports--Malaga, Cadiz, Barcelona, and Ferrol. In all these the American -squadron would be heartily welcome, and meet with all kinds of naval -stores in the greatest abundance. Lisbon, also, was a fine harbor, and -Oporto would be proper for the same purpose. So that, in case of -accident, the armament had nothing to fear from wanting a place of -retreat. He had no doubt that our vessels and our sailors would both be -much superior to those of the Algerines. Their ships were old and -crazy, and were presents made them by the powers with whom they are not -at war. The American bottoms must be better; and our fleet will most -likely have its station between Oran and Malaga, and, stretching across -between those two ports, block up the mouth of the Straits. He adverted -to the mistake of Mr. BALDWIN, who had said that Spain never attempted -to block up the Straits; the proper answer to which was, that Spain had -an extensive coast, not less than four or five hundred miles, within the -Mediterranean; so that she was quite differently situated, with regard -to them, from America. Mr. S. mentioned, as a consolatory circumstance, -that our profit was twice as great at present, in commerce, as it was -before the war, in spite of all the spoliations committed by Britain, -and by Spain; and, if the war continues, the profits will continue to -multiply twice as fast as they would otherwise do. As an evidence of -this fact, he mentioned the high price of wheat at present in this -market, and asked whether any gentleman had heard of a price so high at -this season of the year before? A gentleman (Mr. NICHOLAS) had spoken of -an Algerine militia. Why, sir, (said Mr. S.,) I shall set down against -them the American militia, and so that account is settled. He estimated -that the whole American exports and imports, in round numbers, was -twenty millions of dollars each; and that the extra insurance on account -of the Algerines, from one end of the year to the other, would not be -less than five per cent. to the whole, which was altogether two millions -of dollars. From this Mr. S. inferred that it must be the very worst -kind of economy to hazard an expense of two millions of dollars of -insurance, for the sake of saving the charges of this armament. He did -not see it improbable that the Algerines might very soon be on our -coast, under the command of British or American renegadoes. It was -nothing uncommon, among seamen, for two captains to be in the greatest -friendship to-day, and plundering each other's vessels to-morrow. As an -example of what Americans, in particular, are capable of doing, he -repeated the history of a Mr. Cooper, of Virginia, who, some years ago, -fitted out a ship for the express purpose of cruising against American -vessels bound from or to the East Indies. He sent a person into the -harbor of Algiers to solicit a commission from the Dey, and this envoy -had very near been taken prisoner, as the Dey wanted to have made a -slave of him. Mr. S. said that Mr. Cooper was known to be a man of -courage, of perseverance, and as possessing that species of intellectual -resources which qualify an adventurer for bold undertakings. He -inferred, from this anecdote, that, if Mr. Cooper, a man of respectable -birth and connections, could form such a scheme, what was not to be -feared from the common set of seamen? He could not tell where the danger -might end; nor did he know whether Philadelphia itself would be in -safety. They might speak of their forts as much as they pleased; he knew -their force, and did not much value it. The British had gone past them, -and what was to hinder the Algerines, or such a man as Mr. Cooper, from -getting past them? Were he on the coast of an enemy, he should not have -the least scruple of engaging to run a ship by such forts, when there -was in view so great a prospect as the plunder of Philadelphia. He -strongly pressed the necessity of sending out the proposed fleet as -quickly as possible. - -Mr. AMES attacked the mover of the resolutions on the Report of the -Secretary (Mr. MADISON) for not displaying in the affair of the -Algerines some part of the spirit which he had exerted on the other -occasion. He thought it shameful to buy a peace, and that there could be -no security, if we did. He recommended an armament. Portugal had shown -herself friendly; and, referring to what Mr. CLARK had stated, he was of -opinion she would give our ships shelter in her ports. He thought that -six stout frigates at the mouth of the Straits would do the business. He -went at considerable length into Mr. MADISON's resolutions, and -condemned, upon various grounds, the arguments and conduct of the -gentlemen who supported them. Yesterday, we were told that Britain durst -not quarrel with America, and to-day she is represented as ready to do -it. Our commerce is on the point of being annihilated, and, unless an -armament is fitted out, we may very soon expect the Algerines on the -coast of America. - -Mr. GILES, in reply, said that Mr. AMES drew inconsistent pictures. One -day he represented the American commerce at the summit of prosperity; -the next, it was reduced to nothing. In defence of the commercial -regulations, he reminded the House that Britain, and not Algiers, was -the real object of alarm, and the real source of hostility. It was, -therefore, proper to provide remedies against both of these illustrious -confederates. Algiers was but the instrument, Britain was the cause. The -reliance of Britain upon this instrument plainly showed that she was not -equal to a war and a commercial contest. She had, therefore, turned -loose the Algerines upon us--a fact which is pretty generally -acknowledged on both sides of the House. It is, therefore, in the power -of Britain to prevent the progress of these pirates. The commercial -restrictions will reduce Britain to difficulty, and she will then, for -the sake of friendship with America, be glad to put a stop to the -Algerine ravages. Until some measure of this kind has been adopted, -Britain, as she has raised up Algiers, will keep her up. The cheapest -mode of getting peace will certainly be by embracing the commercial -regulations. Mr. G. was averse to the proposal of a fleet. He agreed -very much with the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. CLARK,) that it would -be a better expedient to hire the fleet of Portugal. He considered the -establishment of a maritime force as having a direct tendency to war; -whereas, the commercial restrictions had the same tendency to peace. The -sending of American armed ships into the midst of the fleets of Europe -would certainly produce a quarrel. It had been well remarked, (by Mr. -CLARK,) that, if an attempt was made to search our ships of war, like -our merchantmen, it would infallibly produce a public affront, and -consequent hostilities. - -Mr. MADISON, in reply to some remarks which had fallen from Mr. SMITH, -respecting the present high price of wheat in the American market, said, -that he had been informed of a place where wheat sold for four shillings -and sixpence per bushel only, where the dollar passes for six shillings. -Mr. M. supposed that Britain could render very essential service to the -Algerines, without embarking in a war. She has not embarked in a war to -the north-west of the Ohio, but she has done the same thing, in -substance, by supplying the Indians with arms, ammunition, and, perhaps, -with subsistence. He did not assert that Britain directed the plan of -the Indian expeditions, for he had no explicit evidence that they -actually did so. In the same way that they gave underhand assistance to -the Indians, they would give it to the Algerines, rather than hazard an -open war. - -The committee now rose, without coming to the question. - - -FRIDAY, February 7. - -JOHN PAGE, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, and took -his seat in the House. - -_Algerine War._ - -THE NAVAL FORCE. - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -state of the Union. The Chairman read the resolution before the House -for equipping a Naval force. - -Mr. MADISON thought this expedient unlikely to answer the purpose, and -liable to many objections. Before the American squadron can be equipped, -the truce between Algiers and Portugal must expire. When that expiration -shall take place, she either will not renew the truce at all, or she -will stipulate that the United States shall be comprehended in it. He -would save the money intended for the fleet, and hire the Portuguese -ships of war with it, as soon as the truce ends. He wished that the -committee might reject the present motion, and when they did so, he -would move a resolution, a copy of which he read to the committee. It -was in substance: - - "That the sum of ---- dollars be provided to be employed in - such a manner as should be found most effectual for - obtaining a peace with the Regency of Algiers; and failing - of this, that the sum should be applied to the end of - obtaining protection from some of the European Powers." - -Mr. M. considered the armament at present proposed, as quite too small -to answer any efficient purpose. - -A member here observed, that it would be hazardous to rely on Portugal; -because, though the truce might expire in about six months, it would -possibly be renewed at the end of that time, or converted into a peace. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS wished that gentlemen would pay some attention to -attested facts, before they so abruptly declare that the six ships -proposed by the committee to be built and put into commission, were -incompetent to the end for which they were designed. The committee had -bestowed considerable time in deliberating upon the best information -which could be obtained, before they specified the force requisite to be -employed, and they had been satisfied, that what was now proposed would -be equal to the end. Here Mr. F. read a different statement of the ships -of war in the service of the Regency of Algiers, at different times. One -of these shows that in the year 1789, there were nine xebecs, from -thirty-six to ten guns, and one ship of forty guns upon the stocks; but -that several of the xebecs were laid up or unfit for service. A second -estimate of the Algerine maritime force, had been transmitted by Mr. -Humphries. He specified four frigates, two xebecs, and one brig. By -advices still more recent, the fleet consisted of one vessel of -forty-four guns, one of thirty-six, one of twenty-eight, three xebecs, -and a brig. Mr. F. observed, that gentlemen had objected to the sending -out an American fleet; that they could not always keep together. He -reminded them, that from November to March or April, the corsairs of -Barbary never go out to sea. There were two months during that time, -when they were restrained by their religion from piratical excursions. -The committee had been told, that the Portuguese are ready to assist us. -There is ground to expect this assistance, but not to depend upon it. -Two American frigates, along with the Portuguese vessels, would be fully -equal to the task of curbing the Algerines. As to militia, he could not -see of what consequence they could be in a naval contest. With regard to -expense, he stated a very important fact. The United States import, -annually, two millions of bushels of salt from these countries, which -the Algerines will cut off from our commerce. The rise on that article -must then be at least one dollar per bushel; which is a tax of two -millions of dollars at once, or three times the expense of the armament. -Probably, however, the loss may extend to four millions of dollars on -this single article of salt, in one year only; a sum which would keep up -the fleet a long time. We have been trying to buy a peace, but without -success; and if we are not able to enforce it, the price of buying it -must be so much the higher. As soon as Portugal is left to herself, she -will certainly protect us, because it is much for her interest to do so. -At present, she cannot, perhaps, from the influence of the combined -powers. Mr. F., therefore, recommended an armament in the mean time. - -Mr. SMILIE objected to this measure, because it was unequal to the task. -Britain would assist the Algerines underhandedly, as she did an enemy in -another quarter, and would continue to do so. He did not think she was -shameless enough to own it, but she would do it.[49] - -Mr. NICHOLAS went on the same ground. He said that Britain had not been -content with striking up a truce for Portugal, that the Algerines might -be let loose on American commerce, but her Minister at the Court of -Lisbon had endeavored to prevent our vessels from obtaining a Portuguese -convoy. Not content with insuring a loss to America, she had striven to -make that loss immediate. As to the duration of the truce, it could not -last long, for the Queen of Portugal had, in fact, broken it already. -She had declared that the trade to that country should pass unmolested; -to which condition it was not likely that the Algerines would consent. -The Portuguese nobility had clamored at the acceptance of a truce. So -that, on the whole, it could hardly last long. A naval force was a very -expensive affair. The greater part of the immense debt of England had -been lavished on her navy. He was against building a navy. - -Mr. SWIFT had been always sensible that the situation of this country -was not fit for war. We have a very heavy debt; but still it is better -to bear debts than depredations. A gentleman of extensive information -(Mr. S. SMITH, in yesterday's debate) had stated the rise of insurance -as much less than the armament would cost. Britain had always more -dependence on her navy, than on the immense sums that she pays to these -barbarians. Mr. S. had no doubt that the proposed fleet would have its -intended effect. He despaired of either buying a truce or buying an -ally. As to the militia of Algiers, they could not be brought into -action against frigates. He considered the charge of hiring the -Algerines, as an unfounded accusation on the honor of Britain. He could -not bring himself to believe that she was capable of a conduct so -exceedingly disgraceful. He had no direct evidence to convince. It might -be objected to this armament, that it would augment the national debt, -and throw too much influence into the hands of the Executive Government. -But the same objection might be started against every armament whatever. - -Mr. MURRAY said, the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) yesterday, -observed that he was not a little surprised that those who a few days -since had appeared so alarmed at the phantom of war, should on this -question appear so willing to meet it. He would remark that those -gentlemen were alarmed at a shadow which appeared followed by the -substance of war, and were unwilling to do any thing that might lead to -a war that did not yet exist. But we were now at war with Algiers, and -had no choice. They had been at war with the United States ever since -the end of the Revolutionary war. The Spaniards and Portuguese kept them -within the Mediterranean. Gentlemen who are averse to the report, hold -up two substitute measures: one, which was suggested, and has been -argued by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) is, that we ought -to grant a sum to Portugal for her protection of our trade. The other -is, that commercial regulations will accomplish our protection. He liked -neither. The last, if permanent, will withdraw all temptation from Great -Britain to interpose her good offices. The first is worse; it is -subsidizing Portugal at the expense of our own people, and that too -without security. Gentlemen would make it the interest of Portugal to -make such breaches of truce as would occasionally withdraw protection, -and oblige us to subsidize her higher. It would create a disgraceful -dependence on a foreign power, and weaken the spirit of our marine; -whereas, if you fit out frigates, you employ your money in nourishing -the roots of your own industry; you encourage your own ship-building, -lumber, and victualling business. He believed, that however true might -be the suspicion of British interference in Indian affairs, and he -feared it was too true, he did not believe the evidence as to Algerine -interference strong enough to induce an argument against the report, -under a supposition that as Great Britain had effected the truce, so she -would aid Algiers against us. He thought so, because it was not now as -much her interest as it was in times of peace. In times of peace, had -she let loose the Algerines, her own navigation would have been enabled -to carry for us, but now it would be molested by the French. He did not -believe nations, more than persons, would do wrong purely out of evil -designs, devoid of interest; the greatest villain would not. At present, -their ships are liable to attack from the French, and he had it from -good authority, that so far were the British from having advantaged -themselves if they had been so base, that scarcely a British ship had -appeared since in our ports. The ship frigates would be able to blockade -the Gut of Gibraltar; the Algerines did not sail in fleets; they wanted -plunder, not glory; when they discovered they had to get the first by -hard fighting, they would listen to peace, accompanied by money. Spain, -it was true, had purchased a peace, but there was an hereditary -inveteracy against Spain, and a facility of attacking her shores which -we need not fear; so it was her interest to buy a peace when war could -bring her nothing but a glory that almost disgraced her armies; as to -jealousy of power in the Executive, he hoped to see a proper equipoise -in the powers of this Government; but, when proper occasions occurred, -he hoped Congress would never refuse the adequate means to enable the -Executive to discharge its constitutional duties. - -Mr. GOODHUE observed, that the committee had carefully looked over the -statement of the marine force of Algiers for several years back, and had -no reason to doubt that the six vessels would be equal to the purpose -intended. There was no ground to suppose Algiers would have more force -at present than she had during her war with Portugal. He had no doubt -that the Algerines were let loose on the American commerce to prevent -supplies going to France, and while the war lasts, we shall not be able -to buy a peace. It is said, that the truce was but for a year, and in -six months it will expire. He did not wish to depend on that, when the -evil is so great. And why depend on Portugal? She is more under the -influence of Britain than any other nation in Europe. When Britain has -been at the trouble of stipulating a peace for Portugal, will she suffer -that nation to assist us? Certainly not. Or is it wise to stand by and -depend upon such a resource? - -Mr. MADISON said, that gentlemen thought so differently on this subject, -and advanced arguments against his side of the question of such a -different nature, that it was difficult or impossible to give them an -answer. He then proceeded to quote the speech of Mr. GOODHUE; when that -gentleman rose to explain. Mr. M. then proceeded to notice the speeches -of Mr. FITZSIMONS and Mr. S. SMITH. Both of these gentlemen were up more -than once to explain, as having been misquoted. In a speech of -considerable length, he was not suffered long to proceed without -interruptions of explanations. This produced a scene of altercation. One -circumstance, however, was mentioned by Mr. FITZSIMONS that deserves -particular notice. From April to December next, he said, the insurance -on American ships from England and the rest of Europe, will not be less -than twenty-five per cent. of their value on account of the Algerines. - -The House now adjourned, without taking any question. - - -TUESDAY, March 4. - -_Estimate of Appropriations._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury of the sums necessary to be -appropriated for the service of the year one thousand seven hundred and -ninety-four; and after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported -that the committee had again had the said report under consideration, -and come to a resolution thereupon; which he delivered in at the Clerk's -table, where the same was twice read, and agreed to by the House, as -follows: - -_Resolved_, That, for the support of the Military Establishment of the -United States, for the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four, -there be appropriated a sum of money, not exceeding one million four -hundred and fifty-seven thousand nine hundred and thirty-six dollars -and one cent; that is to say: - -For the pay of the Legion of the United States, $303,684 00 -For subsistence, 312,567 75 -For forage, 31,632 00 -For clothing, 112,000 00 -For equipments for the cavalry, 7,314 05 -For horses for the cavalry, 16,000 00 -For bounty, 5,000 00 -For the Hospital Department, 20,000 00 -For the Ordnance Department, 6,715 32 -For repairs and articles directed to be made - and purchased by the PRESIDENT OF THE - UNITED STATES, 202,783 34 -For defensive protection of the frontiers, 130,000 00 -For the Indian Department, 50,000 00 -For the Quartermaster's Department, 150,000 00 -For contingencies of the War Department, 30,000 00 -And for Invalid Pensions, 80,239 55 - ------------ - $1,457,936 01 - -_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said -resolution; and that Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. TRUMBULL, and Mr. GILLESPIE, do -prepare and bring in the same. - - -THURSDAY, March 6. - -_Slave Trade._ - -The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill to prohibit the -carrying on the slave trade from the ports of the United States, Mr. -BOUDINOT in the chair. - -The two first sections of the bill were agreed to, with one alteration -moved by Mr. TRUMBULL, which was to give the District Court as well as -the Circuit Courts cognizance of the offence. - -The third section which relates to the penalty &c., it was moved should -be struck out. This motion was negatived. It was then moved to insert -the word _foreign_ before "ship or vessel;" which was agreed to. - -The committee proceeded through the bill, which was reported to the -House with sundry amendments; these were agreed to by the House, and the -bill ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. - - -MONDAY, March 10. - -_Algerine War._ - -NAVAL ARMAMENT. - -Mr. GILES observed, that, from the sense of the House several times -manifested on this subject, there remained no doubt but that the bill -would pass. In that event, he most earnestly hoped that the success of -the measure would, at least, equal the expectations of its advocates. -Indeed, he hoped that their expectations would be disappointed and -exceeded; for it did not seem to him that even they were very positive -as to its full competency to the end proposed. He even wished that -every ship could be furnished with the cap of Fortunatus and the shield -of Hercules; for he was persuaded that, in the present state of things, -some magical influence would be found essential to enable them to effect -their undertaking. He observed, that, at present, the wisdom or folly of -the proposed measure was mere matter of opinion; that the passage of the -bill will furnish futurity with a complete experiment of its true -character. - -He intended to offer his reasons against the passage of the bill, not -with a hope of making proselytes, but as a testimony of the real motives -which influenced his opposition. With this view, he should only mention -some of the general impressions produced on his mind by this subject, -without fatiguing the House with minute exemplifications of them. - -The subject had presented itself to him in two points of view--1st, as -affording a protection to our commerce against the Algerine -depredations; 2d, as the foundation of a permanent naval establishment. - -He could not help premising that, in the course of discussion, the -advocates of the bill had censured its opponents with a want of -disposition for the protection of commerce, whilst they claimed a -monopoly of all good intention towards this object. He did not mean to -derogate from the good intention of the favorers of the bill, but he -believed its opponents possessed as pure a zeal for the protection and -due encouragement of commerce as its advocates. It is not a question -whether commerce is, or is not, to be protected; but whether the plan -proposed be the most effectual and the least exceptionable that can be -devised for that purpose? The difference of opinion does not consist in -the end to be produced, but in the means proposed to effect the end. - -The first objection he should make to the bill would be, the obvious -inadequacy of the means contemplated to effect the end proposed by them. -The object proposed is an effectual resistance, not only to the whole -present naval force of Algiers, but to their whole naval ability. The -bill contains, in itself, essentially a declaration of war. Our -calculations, therefore, should be extended to the utmost limit of the -naval ability of the hostile nation. The means to be employed consist of -four frigates of forty-four guns each, and two ships of thirty-six guns -each. To decide with propriety upon the objection, this force should be -compared with the naval ability of Algiers. He did not mean to go into a -minute history of Algiers. He should only observe, in general, that it -was a populous country; that it had furnished at one time one hundred -thousand fighting men; that its power at this day was as great as at any -preceding period; that they were a warlike people, accustomed to naval -enterprises and desperate in naval engagements; that, for some time -past, they had been subsidized for peace by almost every European -nation. He could not help concluding, from these circumstances, that -the naval ability of the nation either was or might, without any -uncommon exertions, he rendered superior to four forty-four gun frigates -and two thirty-six gun ships, the force contemplated by the bill; and, -if the conclusions were just, the bill is unwise. - -Mr. G. proceeded to consider the bill as the foundation of a permanent -naval establishment. He said there was a clause in the bill authorizing -the PRESIDENT to suspend all proceedings in the equipment of the -armament, in case of a peace with Algiers, which gave him some -consolation; but it did not altogether relieve his apprehensions from -this operation of the measure, because he knew that a permanent naval -establishment was a favorite policy with some gentlemen, and because the -argument had been urged in favor of the present bill. - -He observed that a permanent naval establishment could be recommended to -the United States but from one or both of the following considerations: -either upon the principle of entering into a competition for naval power -with the Powers of Europe; or as affording security to the collection of -our own revenue. - -He thought the question of a permanent naval establishment was one of -the most important which could be presented to the consideration of the -House, and that the most serious consequences were necessarily connected -with it. In the first place, he viewed the establishment of a navy as a -complete dereliction of the policy of discharging the principal of the -public debt. History does not afford an instance of a nation which -continued to increase their navy and decrease their debt at the same -time. It is an operation exceeding the ability of any nation. The naval -competition of the Powers in Europe has produced oppression to their -subjects and ruin to themselves. The ruin of the French Monarchy, he -believed, might be ascribed very much to that cause. A navy is the most -expensive of all means of defence, and the tyranny of governments -consists in the expensiveness of their machinery. The expensiveness of -the French Monarchy is the true cause of its destruction. The navy of -France furnished the principal item of that expense. The navy produced -expense, the expense exceeded the revenue, new contributions became -necessary, the people saw the tyranny, and destroyed the tyrant. The -same effect, by the same policy, will probably be produced in great -Great Britain. The Government is not yet destroyed, but the people are -oppressed, liberty is banished. The extensiveness of the Government is -the true ground of the oppression of the people. The King, the Nobility, -the Priesthood, the Army, and, above all, the Navy. - -All this machinery lessens the number of the productive and increases -the number of unproductive hands of the nation in Great Britain. The -operation has been extended so far that the poor rates alone probably -afforded a greater tax per _capita_ than the whole taxes paid in the -United States. He was astonished with these fatal examples before our -eyes, that there should be any gentlemen who would wish to enter into -this fashionable system of politics. He said the United States had -already progressed full far enough into this system; for, exclusively of -the ordinary expense of the Civil List, a debt had been funded upon -principles of duration. An army had been raised, at an immense expense, -and now there was a proposition for a navy. He observed that, for -several years past, the appropriations for the support of the Military -Establishment had exceeded a million of dollars per annum--from one -million to one million and a half annually. He believed that, if the -expense had been foreseen, there would have been more active efforts to -have avoided it. It was a policy, at this day, very generally condemned; -yet we are now to exhibit a counterpart of this policy upon the ocean, -with this aggravation--that it will commence with greater certain -expense, and with a more uncertain object. The system of governing by -debts he conceived the most refined system of tyranny. It seems to have -been a contrivance devised by politicians to succeed the old system of -feudal tenures. Both systems were tyrannical, but the objects of their -tyranny were different. The system of feuds operated upon the person of -the individual--the system of debts operates upon the pockets of the -individual. In the feudal system, the tenant often received some -indulgence and lenity from the martial generosity which generally -characterized the lord. The lord was gratified with the acknowledgment -of the tenant that he was a slave, and the rendition of a peppercorn as -an evidence of it. The product of the tenant's labor was left for his -own support. The system of debts affords no such indulgences. Its true -policy is to devise objects of expense, and to draw the greatest -possible sum from the people in the least visible mode. It boasts not of -economizing in calls upon the people for contributions. It boasts not of -economizing in the objects of expenditure. It consults the obedience, -and not the happiness of the people. There is no device which -facilitates the system of expense and debts so much as a navy. And he -declared, from that consideration, he should value his liberty at a -lower price than he now did, if the policy of a permanent Naval -Establishment should obtain in the United States. - -Mr. W. SMITH remarked, that though it was not probable any proselytes -were to be expected at this late period of the business, and after so -ample a discussion as the question had received in its different stages, -yet he considered it necessary to make a reply to some of the various -objections which had just been made to the passing of the bill. Many of -those objections appeared to him totally inapplicable to the subject, -which he should pass over in silence. If it were the design of the House -to incur a vast expense in the establishment of a navy, merely for the -idle purposes of vain parade, there would be force in some of the -objections; but, as this was not the case, and as the measure was a -measure not of choice, but of necessity, extorted by the pressure of -unavoidable events, he did not feel their force in any respect. The -question was, simply, whether our commerce required protection against -the Algerine corsairs, and whether this was the best mode of protection. -The first part of the question was admitted on all sides. For himself, -he had always considered the second equally clear. But in the course of -the discussion, various difficulties had been started against the mode -of protection, and various substitutes had been proposed, as offering a -remedy more prompt, more effectual, and less expensive. He would first -consider the proposed substitutes for a naval armament, and then answer -the objections to it. The substitutes were: 1st. To purchase a peace of -the Algerines. 2d. To depend on Portugal breaking her truce with -Algiers, and shutting up their cruisers within the Straits. 3d. To pass -commercial regulations against Great Britain. 4th. To subsidize other -nations to protect our commerce. - -To these several substitutes, he might, in a few words, object that the -first was impracticable, the second precarious, the third inoperative, -and the fourth dishonorable. - -Mr. S. next reviewed the principal objections to the bill. These were, -he said, 1st. That the force contemplated was incompetent. 2d. That -sending an armed force on the ocean would be the means of involving us -in a war with some of the maritime powers. 3d. That we had no friendly -ports in Europe, which our frigates could resort to for supplies or -refitment. 4th. That the expense would exceed the object to be -protected. 5th. That our trade would be deprived of the seamen required -to man the frigates. 6th. That it was now so late in the season we could -not protect our vessels the ensuing summer, and that some favorable -events might occur before the frigates could be equipped, which would -render them unnecessary. 7th. That this was the beginning of a Naval -Establishment, which would hereafter involve this country in immense -debts and maritime wars. - - [To the arguments against a Naval Establishment, Mr. SMITH - answered:] - -The dangers resulting from a large Navy Establishment, and the immense -debts they have created in other countries, had been depicted, and the -House had been warned against such evils. How a bill providing six -frigates, which were to exist only during the war with Algiers, could -excite an apprehension of a large and permanent navy, and an enormous -debt, Mr. S. said he was at a loss to discover. The clause which -authorized the PRESIDENT, in the event of a peace with the Regency of -Algiers, to discontinue the armament, was a complete answer to all the -reasoning which had been indulged on the subject of navies and debts. -Admitting there had been no such clause, he did not feel the weight or -applicability of the reasoning. - -This country is peculiarly fitted for a navy: abounding in all kinds of -naval resources, we have within ourselves those means which other -maritime nations were obliged to obtain from abroad. The nature of our -situation, and the navigating disposition of a considerable proportion -of our citizens, evince still more the propriety of some Naval -Establishment. Perhaps the country is not yet mature for such an -establishment, to any great extent; but he believed the period was not -far distant, when it would be. Sweden, with a population not greater -than that of the United States, and with more slender resources, -maintained a large navy. He saw no reason why the United States, with an -increasing population, much individual wealth, and considerable national -resources, might not, without ruin, do as much, or why the equipment of -a squadron, inferior to that of any of the petty nations of Italy, -should involve us in an insupportable expense. - -The question was then taken on the passage of the bill, and it was -resolved in the affirmative--yeas 50, nays 39, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Fisher Ames, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, - Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, - David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Henry Dearborn, - George Dent, Samuel Dexter, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight - Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn, - Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Samuel Griffin, George - Hancock, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten, - John Wilkes Kittera, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, - William Lyman, Francis Malbone, Peter Muhlenberg, William - Vans Murray, Josiah Parker, Thomas Scott, Theodore - Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith, - Thomas Sprigg, Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George - Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van - Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, Jeremiah - Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, John Watts, and Richard Winn. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, Thomas - Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas - Claiborne, Isaac Coles, William Findlay, William B. Giles, - James Gillespie, Christopher Greenup, William Barry Grove, - Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, Daniel Heister, John - Hunter, William Irvine, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, - James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, William - Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John - Nichols, Nathaniel Niles, John Page, Francis Preston, John - Smilie, Israel Smith, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van - Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Benjamin - Williams, Paine Wingate, and Joseph Winston. - - -THURSDAY, March 27. - -_Sequestration of British Debts._ - -Mr. DAYTON submitted the following resolutions: - - "_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made, by law, for - the sequestration of all the debts due from the citizens of - the United States to the subjects of the King of Great - Britain. - - "_Resolved_, That provision ought, in like manner, to be - made for securing the payment of all such debts into the - Treasury of the United States, there to be held as a pledge - for the indemnification of such of the citizens of the said - States as shall have suffered from the ships of war, - privateers, or from any person, or description of persons, - acting under the commission of authority of the British - King, in contravention of the law of nations, and in - violation of the rights of neutrality." - -_Ordered_, That the said resolutions be committed to a Committee of the -whole House immediately. - -The House accordingly resolved itself into said committee. - -Mr. DAYTON then rose in support of his propositions. When he brought -them forward he did not accompany them (he said) with many observations, -because he was then laboring under indisposition. The same cause would -render him very concise now. - -The injuries and insults we have suffered from Great Britain, he -conceived, need not be dwelt upon. They are well known, and it is -universally acknowledged that we ought to adopt such measures as would -screen us from a repetition of them, and secure to us reparation. The -resolutions he had brought forward he intended as part of that system of -defence and preservation, other portions of which had already received -the sanction of the House. These resolutions, he conceived, would not be -the least efficient part of that system. - -He believed that, when the conduct of Great Britain is reviewed, it -would be found that it is treating their subjects with great lenity to -speak of sequestration only; we should be warranted in confiscating, for -they have subjected our property to condemnation, without an appearance -of an intention to indemnify. - -As to restitution of the property of which we have been plundered on the -high seas, it is impossible. It is condemned, sold, and scattered, and -no hope can be entertained that they intend to indemnify our suffering -citizens. If it had been their intention to indemnify, their Court, in -explanation of the instruction of the 6th of November, would not have -given orders to condemn vessels detained in suspense in the West Indies -until that elucidation was received. - -Since, then, restitution is impossible, and not a shadow of hope exists -that indemnification will be granted; we have only to determine whether -we shall give up the property of which we have been plundered, or claim -it with effect--claim it, and enforce the claim, by showing that we have -the means of retaliation within our power. - -After the proceedings of the British towards us, he believed, we should -have been warranted in confiscating the property now proposed to be -sequestered, without negotiation. This would have been meting to them as -they meted to us. If sequestration is hostility, as he had heard it -called, what, he asked, is condemnation? Besides, they have impressed -American citizens into their service. We have reason to believe, (he -concluded by remarking,) from the negotiation of our Minister with Lord -Grenville, from private information on the tables of Congress, and from -the conduct of some of their officers high in command, that to make war -on us is part of their system. - -Mr. S. SMITH said he always had wished for peace, as the first -desideratum. With this view, agreeably to the wise recommendation of the -PRESIDENT, he agreed to those measures calculated to put the country in -a posture of defence. This was the best mode of securing peace. With the -same view, he proposed an embargo to be laid, which would have drawn to -our ports the remainder of our maritime possessions, and have left them -no longer within the grasp of a nation whose only rule of right is the -measure of her power. He still wished, as long as a shadow of hope -exists, to secure the blessings of peace. With the resolutions now -offered, he was of opinion that we might yet have peace; but, without -them, we shall certainly have war. They will arrest twenty millions of -dollars in our hands, as a fund to reimburse the three or four millions -which we have been stripped of by that piratical nation, Great Britain, -according to the instructions of that king of sea robbers--that -leviathan, which aims at swallowing all that floats on the ocean--that -monster, whose only law is power, and who neither respects the rights of -nations nor the property of individuals! This character the nation he -had mentioned had long deserved. Many proofs might be cited in support -of the assertion. He would only refer to their conduct at St. Eustatia, -when they robbed their allies, the Dutch, and their generals and -admirals turned vendue-masters, and conducted the plundering, to collect -rewards for their exploits. Is it from such a nation (he asked) that we -are to hope for justice? They know not what justice is. It is said that -they showed their love of justice when they so liberally compensated the -Tories after their war with us. Though they despise traitors, yet -self-interest will lead them to reward the treachery, to encourage a -principle which may again be useful to them. Self-interest, then, and -not justice, actuated them on that as on every other occasion. - -Let us pass the resolutions, then send an envoy to Great Britain, and we -shall have peace. We shall then be able to speak to them of their -interest. But if war should be the inevitable issue, Americans, he was -sure, would meet it like men, rather than submit to insult and suffer -the honor of the country to be prostrated. - -If we were able, while in infancy as a nation, to assert our rights, -will it be said, that, now we have arrived at a state of manhood, we -shall fear them? No! our young men burn for an opportunity to defend the -liberty, rights, and property of their country. They will step out as -one, and meet the event like men. - -He read a quotation from _Vattel_, to show that a nation has a right to -pay her citizens for losses inflicted by another nation, contrary to -right, by confiscating the property belonging to the citizens of that -nation. The tie of interest, he concluded by remarking, is the strongest -tie we have upon Great Britain. Let us pass the resolutions, and that -nation will never again give us cause to pass similar ones. The people -out of doors will say that we have done right. The nations of Europe -will rejoice to see this power, which is committing depredations on all -nations, humbled. The resolutions, he observed, do not regard the -property in the funds. To touch this is not one of the means of -retaliation warranted by the law of nations. Public contracts should be -sacred. - -Mr. BOUDINOT said, he had not intended to take part in the debate at -this early stage of it; but what had fallen from the member last up, -convinced him that the House should not go into a consideration of the -subject at this time. It should be considered with coolness, and all -passions put out of the question. - -No doubt we have a right to make reprisals, as the Legislature has a -right to declare war; but he doubted whether the United States, in their -present situation, would find it their interest to go into such -measures. The authority read from _Vattel_ by the member last up, he -observed, made against that member's opinion. _Vattel_ expressly says -that reprisals should not be made on property intrusted to public faith. -The debts of British subjects here are in that predicament. He had heard -that gentleman, not long since, with pleasure, expatiate with warmth on -the advantages of credit, especially to this country. Should that credit -be destroyed (he asked) by destroying the confidence of foreigners in -our faith? But, even if this retaliation is lawful, will it be the -interest of the citizens, or rather of the Government, to take such a -step at the present time? We have no doubt been cruelly treated; but we -have made proper application for redress, and received an answer? We -should first send a special envoy and insist on an immediate answer. -This would be the mode of securing peace; at least, it offers the best -chance of securing it. - -The aggressions on our commerce made by Great Britain are no doubt -enough to rouse any American's feelings; but the Legislature ought not -to be swayed by passions; they should discuss the subject calmly and -deliberately. He hoped the committee would rise and allow time, at -least, to take the necessary measures of defence; for, could the -Legislature justify to their constituents this step of retaliation, -should immediate hostilities, warlike hostilities, be the consequence? -To justify a measure of this kind time should be given for the defensive -system adopted to be carried into operation. - -Mr. MERCER next spoke. He owned the measures proposed appeared to him -great and momentous, and, had he any powers of declamation, he should -think it improper to give loose to them on a question of this kind. We -should weigh well our interest, examine carefully the situation in -which we stand, and determine calmly where we shall place our next step. -The proposition is, to arrest, not to confiscate, the debts due to -British subjects. From his recollection of the positions established by -the best jurisprudence writers, no doubt remained in his mind that we -have a clear right to secure to ourselves reparation in that way, and, -in our predicament, confiscation even would be warranted, and by a point -as firmly established as any principle which has the general practice of -nations for a basis. - -One of the latest writers on national law (_Binkershoek_) is of opinion -that debts are property, as well as any thing else, and sees no reason -why they should not, as well as other kinds of property, be seized to -secure indemnity for injuries. This is the opinion of _Wolfius_, of -_Vattel_, _Grotius_, and of his commentators. He could go on with a long -list of authorities, and refer to actual treaties to show that it has -been the practice of nations. Having established the right, he proceeded -to consider the expediency of the propositions. Gentlemen, he hoped, did -not wish that we should make a solemn declaration of war before we -acted. This is no longer the custom among nations. It would be a pompous -display of candor which no longer exists. Have any nations in the -present European war, premised their operations by a declaration? No; -their first step was to do all the injury in their power to their -enemies. Then, we having taken what steps will best tend to our -security, and give us the best hold of our enemy, let us not, however, -lose sight of a settlement by negotiation. Let us show mankind that -peace is our first wish. When we are thus prepared, let us step forward -to an amicable negotiation. Let us call on the Executive to send forward -some proper person to the Court of Great Britain, to assure them that we -have a high sense of the injury done us; that we have it in our power to -resent it, but wish to see the difference settled by receiving an -indemnification. We shall thus make it their interest as well as duty to -allow it. This he conceived to be the line of conduct we should adopt if -we wished to preserve the Western Hemisphere from the scourges that -desolate the Old World. By some such measure as that proposed, we should -make their motives for peace more weighty, and we should give assurances -of our amicable disposition, by showing that all we wish is a just -compensation. - -In a matter of this kind he was sensible of the danger of precipitation. -The best mode of arresting the property proposed should be calmly -weighed. He believed that something like the proposition made by Mr. -SMITH, of South Carolina, before the House resolved itself into a -committee--a stop to all transfers of British property--would be proper -as a preliminary step. - -He concluded with some observations on the respect which nations, -however weak, will command from their superiors in strength, by showing -that they will not suffer imposition, by joining heart and hand in -defence of their rights. This spirit, he was sure, animates Americans, -and now their power is better able to keep pace with that spirit than -when we humbled that nation. At that time we were in our infancy--an -infancy by no means thriving under the trammels of the mother -country--and, when they turned us adrift, and began their hostile -spoliations, they carried with them all our means of defence; but now, -thank Providence, we have spirit and power to defend ourselves. If the -gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) would modify his proposition, -and make the term thirty days, it should have his assent in preference -to that now before the committee. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, that the proposition he had read -before the House went into committee was in the nature of an embargo on -debts, securing them from transfer until the necessity of sequestering -them more plainly appeared. The proposition did not then appear to meet -the wishes of the House. When the committee should rise he would again -bring it forward. The question now before the committee is, whether they -will agree to a sequestration of British debts. He wished this object -had not been coupled with the indemnification to our own citizens, -because it is fairer to decide each question upon its own merits. That -part of the resolutions which contemplates an indemnification may give a -weight to the first part which it might not intrinsically deserve. - -He made some observations on the propriety of cool deliberation on the -present important subject. The passions should be banished, and calm -reason more than ever courted. It requires all the wisdom of the -Legislative body now to combine our national honor with our national -safety. He had doubts on the propriety of the resolutions proposed, but -acknowledged that the arguments used in their favor had great weight in -his mind. If the situation of this country be compared with that of -other commercial nations, the propriety of something like the present -resolutions would appear more evident. When other commercial nations -wish to quarrel with us, their navies enable them to seize our vessels, -and we cannot retaliate in the same way. Then we must fly to such means -of retaliation as are in our power. If they take our property of one -description, and we cannot lay our hands upon the same kind, we must -take any of theirs within our reach. This reasoning has, no doubt, great -force; but the sacredness with which the modern usages of nations has -shielded debts is a great bar to our proceeding in the present case. -Contracts between individuals are now considered as out of the reach of -governments, and it is the modern usage not to meddle with them. In the -beginning of our late war, debts were not confiscated. The State of -South Carolina, though certainly not wanting provocation, while -confiscating all other property, left debts untouched, under the idea -that private contracts are sacred. But this, in a case of war, and -urgent necessity, might be overlooked; but if we are not in a state of -war, perhaps meddling with private contracts might provoke it. Credit is -certainly important to this country. We should consider how far the -operation of the resolutions proposed would give a shock to it. Besides, -they might have a tendency to involve us in future wars. We shall yet -long be under the necessity of receiving certain supplies from Europe, -and shall have debtors among us for those supplies. These debtors may at -any time, when the burden weighs heavy, think of easing it by fomenting -dissensions with the foreign creditor nation, in expectation that a -confiscation of the debts may be an effect. It is true that, in such a -case, they will not be exonerated. But it cannot be supposed that the -government to whom the debts would be transferred could prosecute the -recovery of them with as much ardor as an individual. - -The gentleman last up had relied on the authority of ancient and foreign -jurists. Some among this class of writers warrant putting prisoners to -death--a principle which modern custom has put a stop to. They also, it -is true, warrant the confiscation of debts; but _Burlamaqui_ says this -is not the practice of modern nations. None, or very few trifling -examples can be cited, he believed, of a departure from this principle, -in modern times, among nations where commerce is cherished. This country -depends on commerce, and credit is one of the means by which it -flourishes; we should, then, not endeavor to weaken it. If we are once -over the barrier, by trifling extensions of the principle we may be -carried to immoderate lengths, indeed. Some persons who are in favor of -sequestering private debts, speak with horror of touching the public -funds. For his part, he did not see much difference between confiscating -private and public debts. The object is the injury of an enemy, and to -retaliate for injuries. Again: if we go to war with Great Britain, it is -probable we shall be involved with her allies, then will it be said, -that we shall confiscate what the Dutch lent us at a time of distress or -since the peace. The Dutch have bought largely in our funds. The same -principle will lead us to lay our hands upon that property. It will be -difficult to draw a line, if we admit the principle. - -Under these impressions, if called upon to give his vote, he should now -feel much embarrassment. It had been said that the adoption of the -present resolutions would be a means of obliging Great Britain to do us -justice; that it would strike a terror among the subjects of that -country, and make them clamorous for peace. It might, he feared, have a -very different effect exasperate them, and unite the people with the -Government against us. Some further forbearance on our part may separate -them. It will convince the people of Great Britain that we really wish -for peace, and then, if war is the issue, the impression will be -severely felt by that Government. We shall render the Administration -very unpopular, and hasten its dismission for one more friendly to this -country. He was of opinion this crisis was fast approaching. - -He concluded by again adverting to his propositions for preventing the -transfer of British debts, which he hoped would be considered as a -sufficient provision in the present exigency, and would give time to -deliberate on further measures, and to watch the course of events in -Europe, which, he believed, would have great influence upon the conduct -of Great Britain towards us, and probably bring forward the change in -the Administration of Great Britain. - -The committee now rose and reported progress. - - -FRIDAY, March 28. - -_Sequestration of British Debts._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of -the Union, and took up Mr. DAYTON's resolutions for the sequestration of -debts due to British subjects. - -Mr. GILES commenced his remarks by observing, that he had intended to -have given a silent vote upon this question before the committee, and -probably should not have altered that intention, if it had not been from -the solicitous requests expressed yesterday by several gentlemen in the -opposition, that the favorers of the proposed measure should furnish the -committee with the reasons upon which it was founded. Although it -appeared to him to be rather unreasonable that some gentlemen should be -expected, not only to possess reasons for their own opinions, but to -furnish reasons for others; and, although he did not conceive that the -favorers of the measure were under any obligation to disclose the -reasons inducing it, provided they thought proper to hazard its fate -upon a silent vote, yet he was willing to indulge the gentlemen with -presenting to them the general course of reflection which the subject -had produced in his mind, and which had strongly suggested its -propriety. He had, however, a more powerful inducement to disclosing his -opinion, since the subject has become matter of discussion and its -propriety doubted. - -The measure is deemed a bold one, and pregnant with the most serious -consequences; in all such cases, he was desirous that his responsibility -to the United States in general, and to his immediate constituents in -particular, would at all times be tested by the real motives which -should influence his conduct. - -Several gentlemen in the opposition had earnestly admonished the -committee against the indulgence of their passions upon this subject, -and recommended the exercise of cool and deliberate reasoning. He should -not pretend to say how far such an admonition was necessary, or -justified by the temper of the committee, but he believed it applied as -strongly to the gentlemen who suggested the caution, as to those to whom -it was addressed; and he hoped, in the course of the future discussion, -the gentlemen would show an example in themselves of the precepts they -had prescribed to others. - -As to himself, Mr. G. declared that, impressed with the awfulness of the -present crisis, he had never reflected upon a subject with more -coolness; and, if he understood his own situation, his mind was never in -a state more susceptible of conviction. - -The proposed measure is expected to eventuate in a final explanation of -the relative state of things between the United States and Great -Britain. It will probably result, therefore, in an open hostility, with -the usual appeal to arms, or in a peace, with all the rights of -neutrality attached to it. For this purpose, the resolution proposes a -sequestration of the debts due to the subjects of Great Britain, to be -held as a pledge for the indemnification of the losses sustained by -American citizens under the orders of the British King, in contravention -of the laws of nations, and violation of every rule of morality and -justice. In the course of debate, this subject seems to have resolved -itself into two questions. First, as it respects the right of one nation -to sequester the property of the individuals of another in any possible -case. Second, the policy of exercising this right at this time, under -the existing circumstances of the United States. - -He presumed that a state of things might exist between two nations in -which reprisal would not only become the right but the duty to the -nation sustaining the wrong. This happens where one nation, without -cause, forcibly seizes upon the effects of another, or of its citizens, -and withholds them without restitution or compensation, and when the -nation, whose effects shall be so seized and detained, shall possess no -other means of indemnification. The right of reprisal in the injured -nation, in such a case, grows out of its injury sustained, and its -inability to redress itself in any other way. - -The duty of the injured nation to make reprisals, is founded on -self-preservation; and in case of the losses of its citizens, upon the -promise of the protection of property sacredly made by the nation to its -individual members. - -This he believed to be the doctrine of the laws of morality and reason, -and he knew it to be the doctrine of the laws of nations, which were, in -fact, nothing more than the laws of morality and reason systematized and -reduced to writing. - -Believing this principle to be a just one, he would apply it to the -existing state of things between the United States and Great Britain. -Almost as soon as Great Britain had taken part in the iniquitous war -against France, the Executive of the United States manifested their -regard for peace, by proclaiming their existing state of neutrality, and -recommending to their citizens, not only the observance of neutrality, -but of impartial neutrality--although the partiality of the American -people for the cause of France was well known--although, at that moment, -their affections for the French nation were addressed by the most -honorable and powerful considerations that ever existed between two -nations. The peculiar similarity between the existing French cause and -that which had just given birth to American liberty and independence; -the material agency which the French nation had exerted in bringing -about that event; and the existing principles of Government here, the -product of the Revolution, which are the great object of attack by the -combination against France. - -A pure and laudable regard for peace, and a detestation of war, however, -had overcome all these sensations, and produced a neutrality, which he -believed, on the part of the United States, had been rigidly observed; -at least, he was sure, that such was the intention of Government. In -this state of things, Great Britain commenced an attack upon this state -of neutrality, which it was certainly her interest to preserve, and -which she ought to have deemed a favor to obtain. Great Britain -continued to keep possession of posts upon the acknowledged territory of -the United States, to carry on a contraband trade with our savage enemy. -She, shortly after our proclaimed neutrality, proceeded to interrupt our -lawful trade with our allies. She seized, condemned, and sanctioned the -complete transfer of the property of American citizens to her own -subjects; and, as if there could be no limits to her iniquity and -resentment, she has contrived to open upon our Eastern frontiers a -barbarous enemy to aid in making depredations upon our commerce. - -These acts constitute injuries which amount to war, and they are -infinitely aggravated, both by the perfidy which attended the execution -of some of them, and the total want of provocation for the commission of -any of them. - -If, then, Great Britain shall have committed acts towards the United -States which furnish just cause of war, the United States possess the -right, consistently with the laws of nations, to exercise any act -towards Great Britain which would be justifiable in a state of war. The -United States having received the injuries, are authorized to select -such measures and means as they may deem the most expedient for -self-preservation and indemnification. Reprisal is within their power. -All other means of redress are without their power. In such a state of -things, reprisal is a right--reprisal is a duty. An objection, more -plausible than solid, has been made to this course of reasoning, that -the individuals who will be the immediate objects of the reprisal, have -not been the immediate agents of the aggression. The laws of nations -state, that the property of individuals is as much a subject of reprisal -as the property of the aggressing nation; but, as the nation is the -immediate agent in the wrong, the individual who sustains an injury -thereby, becomes entitled to recompense from his nation. The nation -which commits the wrong, by this process, will ultimately sustain the -loss. Hence, in the present case, the innocent and unsuspecting victims -of the United States, have received losses from the lawless aggressions -of Great Britain, and the question is, whether they shall finally -sustain those losses, without any clear claim of indemnification upon -the Government of the United States? or, whether the losses shall be -transferred to British subjects, who will thereby possess the clearest -claim for recompense from the British Government? He thought the laws of -God, the laws of morality, the laws of reason, the laws of nations, -would all pronounce that the British Government which had done the -wrong, should afford the recompense. - -Mr. G. said, that if the losses were to be ultimately borne by the -individual subjects of Great Britain, the remedy would seem to be a -harsh one; but, even in that case, the only alternatives left to the -United States would be to say whether their own citizens, to whom they -have promised protection, should finally sustain the losses, or the -British subjects, to whom they have promised no protection. But the -situation of the individuals who may be the subjects of reprisal, is -greatly meliorated, by the consideration of their just claim to -recompense from their own Government, which he had no doubt but they -would ultimately obtain, if they were put into a situation to demand it; -but if they should ultimately be denied justice, it would be a -consolation to reflect, that it was the injustice of their own -Government, not of the United States. - -He observed, that a reprisal in the way proposed, stood upon the same -ground as the invasion of the property in every other case did, and was -justified upon the same principle, to wit, self-preservation. He -presumed, if there existed an acknowledged state of war, letters of -marque and reprisal, commissions to privateers, &c., would be deemed -justifiable and expedient, and that no discrimination would be made -between the property of individuals and the property of the nation; yet -the invasion of the rights of property in that case would be as palpable -as in the case of the reprisal proposed, with this aggravation; that, in -that case, the individual sustaining the loss would not be entitled to -ultimate recompense from the Government--in the case proposed, he would -be entitled to recompense. He observed, that the British nation had not -discovered this delicate discrimination between national and individual -property, in their late instructions given to their privateers and ships -of war, although they had sustained no wrong; and he thought their -conduct an example in point for the United States, who had received the -injury and committed none. - -A gentleman (Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina) yesterday attempted to make a -distinction between vessels at sea and other property; although he -acknowledged that, at the first blush, he could discern no distinction -in principle. - -Mr. G. said, that every species of property stood on the same -principle--the promise made by the Government to afford protection to -all property--the same rights are attached to every species of property, -and the Government is bound to afford an equal security to all. A -sentence read yesterday, by a gentleman, (Mr. S. SMITH), from a writer -upon the laws of nations, clearly shows the right of a nation to make -reprisal upon all the effects of individuals of an aggressing nation -indiscriminately, except stock in the public funds; which has been -exempted, under the idea of its being a pledge in the hands of -Government; the withholding of which would be a breach of public faith. -He believed that the practice and policy of some nations might have -given rise to this distinction, but he doubted whether the practice had -been uniform and universal, and he was clear that there was no rational -distinction in principle. The idea that the public funds are a pledge in -the hands of Government, and ought not, therefore, to be touched, is -equally applicable to every other species of property. In the case of -contracts between individuals, the Government guarantees the performance -upon the refusal of one party to pay, or comply. In the case of lands or -personal chattels, the Government guarantees the exclusive enjoyment to -the proprietor; it would be equally a violation of faith for the -Government to deny its obligation in the one case as in the other, and -nothing could justify an invasion of the rights of property, in any -case, but self-preservation--the first of all rights, and the highest of -all duties. - -He positively denied that any pre-eminence was due to one species of -property over another. He said, however, that this discussion was not -immediately necessary, as the resolution under consideration did not -embrace the stock in the funds of the United States. - -Mr. G. observed, that it had been said, and repeated in the committee, -that the proposed measure was war. He denied that the measure in itself -was war, or that it furnished a just cause of war. He believed, however, -that it was problematical whether it would eventuate in peace or war; -indeed, he remarked, that the crisis of affairs is already such, that, -whether the measure be adopted or not, he viewed war as a probable -event, peace as a possible event; but the point he contended for was, -that if the aggressions towards the United States be sufficient to -justify reprisal, the exercise of the right does not furnish a just -cause of war. The exercise of a right by one nation can never involve -the absurd consequence of giving another nation the right to exercise a -wrong. He said, that gentlemen on one side of this question seemed to -act upon an imaginary, instead of the real, state of things. He was not, -therefore, astonished at hearing the committee cautioned against the -violation of neutrality. He did not conceive that the present state of -things between the United States and Great Britain would justify the use -of the term neutrality. Neutrality is a term used to signify the -relation in which two nations stand towards each other. Neutrality, -therefore, requires parties--either party may destroy the relation -between the parties. It therefore appeared absurd to him to say that -Great Britain was in a state of depredation and war towards the United -States, and the United States in a state of neutrality towards Great -Britain. It has been said, that the United States have not abandoned -their neutrality; this is true, but it is no evidence that neutrality -exists. Great Britain has abandoned it for them. - -He said, however, that this was disregarding the substance and entering -into a mere cavil about names. It was not material, in his opinion, what -name ought to be given to the existing relation of things between the -United States and Great Britain--whether it was called a state of peace, -a state of war, a state of neutrality, a state of reprisal, a state of -retortion, or a state of very uncivil conduct on the part of Great -Britain. Nor did he conceive it material to ascertain whether there was -any intermediate stage between a state of peace and a state of war, or -in which state the depredations of Great Britain should technically be -classed; but one thing was certain and material--that the United States -had sustained substantial wrongs, which required a substantial remedy. -Gentlemen who have regarded names and disregarded substances have also -been extremely alarmed at the idea of a discrimination of conduct by the -United States towards foreign nations. A gentleman (Mr. BOUDINOT) -observed yesterday, that the United States had sustained injuries from -France and Spain as well as Great Britain, and asked why there should be -any discrimination in their favor? Mr. G. said he was extremely hurt -that the conduct of France should be so unnecessarily and inopportunely -arraigned in that House. He submitted it to the gentleman to say, if the -United States should be compelled to enter into the war, which was at -this moment not an improbable event, why then it would be wise to -irritate the only nation in the world who could afford them any -substantial assistance! He said that this conduct was the less -justifiable, from the recollection that the conduct of France was the -result of necessity, and there was every reason to conclude that the -conduct of that nation would be explained in a satisfactory manner. But -a consideration mentioned by a gentleman, (Mr. SMITH, of Maryland,) -yesterday, was a conclusive answer--the United States owe to France a -pecuniary obligation, as well as one of a more sacred nature. This is at -all times sufficient for their indemnification. With respect to Spain, -if the gentleman would show the injury sustained, and point out a fund -for indemnification, Mr. G. declared he would not hesitate a moment to -apply it to that object. - -But will the gentleman conclude, that because one nation has injured us, -in a degree against which we have no redress, that therefore we shall -not indemnify ourselves from a nation which has injured us in the -extreme, and against which we have the most ample redress? - -He believed the gentleman's coolness, his wisdom, and his deliberation, -could not possibly lead him to such a result. With respect to -discrimination in the conduct of the United States towards foreign -nations, it necessarily grew out of the character of the conduct of -other nations towards the United States. Some gentlemen appeared to him -to have carried their ideas upon this subject to the most fanciful -absurdities. To keep France out of the comparison, let this -indiscriminate conduct, so much applauded, be applied to Great Britain -and Holland. Great Britain destroys our trade, plunders our property, -and, to her injuries, adds insult and contempt. Holland, engaged in the -same cause, fosters our trade, and respects us as a nation. Under these -circumstances, do gentlemen contend that an indiscriminate conduct is -due to Great Britain and to Holland? Or do they mean to carry this -delicate indiscriminate conduct so far as to refuse to themselves all -redress from one nation, because they would wish to deal out the same -conduct to all others, whether they had offended or not? He said, that -discrimination was stamped in the front of the conduct of foreign -nations towards us, and to make an indiscriminate return would be the -worst and most unjust of all discriminations. He hoped gentlemen would -pardon him, but he could not help thinking that they had carried their -ideas upon this subject to the most fanciful absurdities. A gentleman -(Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina) yesterday remarked, that of late the -condition of war had been much ameliorated as it regards the rights of -property, and he thought the amelioration ought to be extended rather -than abridged. Mr. G. declared, that he heartily joined him in his -wishes that the condition of war would ere long be ameliorated, both as -it regards property and persons. He hoped that mankind would soon learn -more wisdom than to butcher each other for the amusement or security of -the privileged orders of the world. From that source he believed all -wars arose, and until the cause was banished from the earth, he feared -the fatal effects resulting from it would continue to exist. He -declared, that he should view the banishment of the privileged orders -from the world as the surest harbinger of the approach of the -millennium. But this is not the happy period of the world; for, although -the United States are free from this pest of the human species in their -internal organization, yet the evils they at this moment experience -arise from their external intercourse with that part of the world which -is less fortunate. The attack made on the United States at this moment, -is an attack upon property. If there should be a war between the United -States and Great Britain, it will be a war of property. Unless there -should be a species of madness in the nation not to be calculated upon, -they cannot think of invasion and subjugation. It is known that the -United States cannot make an attack upon Great Britain, and territory -and conquest with them are no objects. Hence the war will be confined to -depredations upon property. This is the most dishonorable species of -warfare, and therefore the more to be regretted. There is this obvious -distinction, however, between the United States and Great Britain. With -Great Britain, at least with the privileged orders, it is matter of -choice; with the United States, it is matter of compulsion. The United -States despise this mode of warfare; they covet not the property of any -nation upon earth, but self-preservation demands it. They are under the -strong hand of a powerful nation, despising their rights, and regardless -of justice. In this state of things, there is but little hope of -strengthening the sacred ties of property; for, in the example of Great -Britain, her late conduct can furnish no consolation for these theoretic -speculations; and however the United States might be inclined to -practise upon them, yet the British depredations will forbid them--for -submission will be an invitation to new acts of aggression. He most -ardently wished the state of things were otherwise; but, exposed to -these inconveniences, the most effectual means ought to be adopted for -their resistance. - -Mr. G. proceeded to observe, that having shown the right of reprisal to -be conformable to the laws of nations, and clearly justified by the -existing relation of things between the United States and Great Britain, -he would now submit a few remarks upon the policy of exercising the -right at this time. Under the existing circumstances of the United -States, he thought the policy of the measure was recommended by the -clearest and most obvious principles. The relation of things between the -United States and Great Britain is such as to demand a final and -unequivocal explanation, whether the proposed measure be adopted or not. -In all parts of this committee, in all parts of the United States, a -definitive explanation is called for. The present state of things -between the two nations cannot long exist. - -It is to be hoped that, the tone of language to be used by the United -States will be adjusted to the nature of the injuries they have -sustained. Acquiescence and submission are no longer recommended. Hence, -matters are already reduced to extremities, and all the irritations -already exist which can grow out of an extreme state of things. The -proposed measure can add nothing to these irritations. The question, -therefore, appears to be reduced to this--whether, in demanding an -explanation and attempting negotiation, we shall use all the means in -our power to compel a favorable issue? or whether we shall tamely -supplicate for justice, and suffer the most effectual means of -compulsion to elude our grasp? He did not mean here to recapitulate the -conduct of Great Britain towards us; he hoped it was sufficiently -impressed upon the mind of every gentleman in the committee; but, after -the recent experience of her conduct, it would be madness, it would be -folly, to address our complaints to her justice or moderation. He -thought it would be wise to lay hold of every thing in our power, and -hold it as a pledge for her good behavior. This measure would put us in -the best possible situation for negotiation. It would authorize an -appeal to her interest, which she could not resist. He begged the -committee to reflect upon the argument which had been used here, to -prevent a late measure which had been adopted, and which had been -renewed upon the present resolution, that a great value in property, -belonging to the citizens of the United States, was in the power of the -British, and that any counteracting measures would place it in extreme -hazard. This seemed to him to have been the most prevailing argument -which had been urged, and for some time was irresistible. If, then, the -argument shall have been applied with so much force here, with how much -more force will it be applied in Great Britain, when they find that the -property of the individuals of that nation is placed in jeopardy here, -and that it greatly exceeds in value the whole of the property which -they have infamously detained and condemned? Besides, if, in the event -of a war, it should be a war of property, as is every where -contemplated. Great Britain will find that the war will be commenced -upon very unequal terms. Viewing this measure, therefore, as to its -probable tendency to peace or war, he thought the probability greatly in -favor of its producing peace. When Great Britain shall find that she is -entering into a contest upon unequal terms, when she shall find that it -may terminate in a permanent loss of the advantages of her commerce with -the United States, when she shall see before her a precipice, into which -if she should once enter she never can return, she would pause before -she acted, she would take time to count the probable loss and gain, and -peace would be the infallible consequence of such deliberate -calculations. This measure will convince Great Britain that the United -States possess a knowledge of their rights, a confidence in their -ability, and a determination in their disposition to assert and support -them. - -A gentleman (Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina) observed yesterday, that a -pacific system would probably attach the people of Great Britain to the -United States, and detach them from their own Government. The gentleman -ought to recollect, that a pusillanimous conduct will not. It is with -nations as it is with individuals--to be respected by others, they -should respect themselves. The same gentleman remarked, that a change of -Ministry might be expected, and advised waiting for the event. The idea -is as undignified as it is chimerical. - -Mr. G. said, he knew nothing of the change of the Ministry--the -principle was unknown here. The people here were their own governors. It -was immaterial to them who the Minister was. Even in the country where -the people were less fortunate, where Ministers govern, a change of -Ministers never produced any solid advantage to the nation. It was -merely an expedient of the moment, to smother a popular clamor. But, -even proceeding upon the gentleman's hypothesis, which Mr. G. thought -wholly inadmissible, he submitted to the gentleman to determine, whether -a positive submission by foreigners to the avaricious regulations of a -Minister, be the most likely mean to render him unpopular at home? On -the other hand, whether it was not the most effectual mean of preserving -his popularity, and of keeping him in office? He presumed the people at -home would never complain of injuries abroad, if those who sustained -them refused to complain. It is but by resistance, and throwing the -burden upon the people of England, that they can be brought to complain. -But, in cases of such extremities as the present, all appeals to the -people of England are futile and degrading. Our only resource should be -in our own exertions. They would be abundantly sufficient, if we could -be brought to believe it. - -Mr. G. remarked, that the people of Ireland had lately afforded an -instructing lesson upon this point. They had arms in their hands for the -purpose of asserting their rights; under the idea of acquiescence and -submission they had surrendered them to the Government; perhaps, under -the expectation of a change of Ministry. Did this act of submission -render them more respectable in the eyes of the people of England? Did -it encourage the hopes of those who wished the establishment of -Government upon the principle of equal rights? Did it not rivet the -chains upon the people of England? Did it render the people of Ireland -more respectable in the eyes of the people of the United States? To -these questions it was unnecessary to give an answer. The people of -Ireland reaped the usual merits of submission--imposition and insult. - -There was another consideration strongly in favor of the policy of the -proposed measure. Applications have been already made from different -parts of the United States by the immediate sufferers from the British -depreciations, for an indemnification of their losses. These -applications will, probably, be increased, repeated, and continued; the -agricultural and other interests of the United States will, probably, -never consent to equalize this burden. The claims of the sufferers upon -the Government will gain additional weight, unless this fund should be -offered to them for their indemnification. This is the obvious, the -natural and the rightful fund for their indemnification; and he thought -it was, at least, the duty of the Government to hold it as a pledge for -their security. If this measure should not now be adopted, the refusal -will lay a foundation for further parties in the United States, which -may ultimately have a serious effect upon the Government. - -An objection, of a very delicate and influential nature, has been made -to the proposed measure, which required some consideration--that it -would affect the character and credit of the Government. He had viewed -this objection with the most deliberate attention, and felt the whole -force of its imposing delicacy; but was at length perfectly satisfied -that it was unfounded. This objection relates rather to the right than -the policy of the United States to adopt the measure. If the United -States possesses the right of reprisal upon an honest and sound -interpretation of the laws of nations; if the conduct of Great Britain -towards the United States be sufficient to justify the excess of the -right, he believed the policy of exercising the right could never -tarnish the American character, nor lessen the credit of American -citizens hereafter. The world of nations, as well as individuals, will -easily see, that it was a measure of compulsion, not of choice; that, -although the United States believed, they regretted the necessity; that -they were not the authors of the original wrongs; that they had borne -them with patience, had used their endeavors to prevent the commission -of them; and that, when these wrongs were committed and repeated, the -United States possessed no other means of redress. - -Under these circumstances, in the exercise of a substantial right, he -did not believe there could flow any consequential wrong. - -The motive would be looked at, and it would furnish a complete -exoneration from blame, whilst the original aggressors would become -justly responsible for all the consequences. - -Mr. G. said, he could not sit down without making some remarks upon the -fruits of the conduct heretofore observed by the United States. The most -pacific system has heretofore marked the character of the Government. -All America looked upon the late proclamation of neutrality as a -competent guarantee for peace. He had no doubt but that it was dictated -by the purest regard for peace. But what have been the fruits of it? He -did not mean to condemn the conduct of the Executive. Perhaps it was -suggested by the then existing state of things. He only intended to -show, that it had not met with the return it merited, and which was -reasonably expected from it. - -It has not produced peace. A regard for peace has been construed into a -fear of war. A resistance of the feelings of the people for the cause of -France has been a palatable food for British arrogance and presumption. -Submission to aggression has invited new aggressions; appeals for -justice have been deemed testimonies of debility, till at length the -United States, after having been stripped of their citizens and -property, are upon the eve of a war, because they have not exerted their -rights at an earlier period. If this conduct should have been heretofore -wise and pacific, experience has taught us that it is no longer so; -nothing can be expected from the justice, the honor, or the moderation -of a court which has proved itself equally a stranger to them all; but, -before such a tribunal, acquiescence will beget injuries, injuries will -beget insults, and insults will beget contempt, degradation, and war. - -Mr. SWIFT remarked that, on the first view of the subject, he had been -inclined to favor the proposition, not having attended minutely to the -distinction made by the laws of nations respecting the property of an -enemy liable to reprisal; but on a full investigation of the subject, -and mature deliberation, he was convinced that the proposition under -consideration would be a direct and manifest violation of the laws of -nations; he was, therefore, clearly and decidedly opposed to its -adoption. Gentlemen have said much respecting the insults and the -injuries which we have received from the British nation; but Mr. S. -conceived it to be unnecessary that gentlemen should describe their -insults and injuries in the highest colors to inflame our passions, and -to animate our resentment. He believed that every gentleman in the -committee deeply felt the indignity which had been offered to their -country, and was convinced that Great Britain had been guilty of a -violation of the laws of nations; but, under such circumstances, it was -our duty to conduct with coolness, candor, and moderation. He thought -that the heat and passion which had been manifested in the course of the -debate were inconsistent with that dignity and propriety which ought to -mark the deliberations of the Legislature. - -Mr. S. observed, that the conduct of the British Court in regard to -their concealing in such a singular manner the Order of the 6th of -November, and the equivocal terms in which it was expressed, was greatly -to their dishonor. But he thought that the words _legal adjudication_, -would fairly admit of a construction that no American vessel that should -be taken pursuant to that order, could be liable to be condemned, unless -warranted by the laws of nations. There was reason to apprehend that -such was the intention of the British Cabinet; and that the Courts of -Admiralty in the West Indies, in their condemnations, had exceeded their -jurisdiction, and contradicted the design of the Court of London. Recent -intelligence confirmed the idea. No information of these illegal -transactions had yet been communicated to them. It was possible that -when that court were made acquainted with the injuries we had sustained -that they would award restitution or compensation. Mr. S. remarked that, -by the laws of nations, no nation had a right to make reprisal for any -injury till all other means of obtaining justice had failed; that it was -our duty in the first place to represent to the Court of Great Britain -the spoliations that had been made on our commerce by the illegal -condemnation of our vessels; that, till we had done this, the laws of -nations would not warrant us to make reprisals on the goods and effects -of the British nation. That there was a possibility of obtaining a -satisfactory explanation of their conduct and reparation for the -injuries we had suffered. It was, therefore, a proper subject of -negotiation. But, he said, if that nation will not do us justice, then -we are authorized to make reprisals. - -Mr. S. then observed that, when we had taken such steps as would -authorize reprisal, we should be precluded by the laws of nations from -adopting the proposition under consideration. He said that a gentleman -from Maryland (Mr. MERCER) had yesterday asserted that _Burlamaqui_ was -the only authority among the writers on the laws of nations against the -measure; and that the opinion of _Vattel_ was in favor of it. Another -gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) had read a passage from _Vattel_, -which he considered as an authority in point, to justify the seizing of -private debts; but not debts due from the public. But if these gentlemen -had thoroughly examined _Vattel_, they would have found, instead of his -being an authority in their favor, he had in the most direct terms -maintained a contrary opinion. He then read a passage from _Vattel_, -that showed that the effects of an enemy in a country at the time of a -declaration of war cannot be seized, but that the owner is entitled to a -reasonable time to remove them; and another passage, which expressly -declared that, by the usage and custom of modern nations, public and -private debts are not the subject of reprisal. Mr. S. conceived that -these rules were founded in the highest wisdom; that all debts were -contracted under a sanction of public faith, and an understanding that a -war should not render them liable to seizure or confiscation; that a -moral obligation existed between the contracting parties for the payment -of the debts; and that no government could ever have a right to violate -a moral obligation. That, therefore, by the law of nations in all -instances where property comes into the possession of a nation by a -confidence reposed in their honor and faith, as in case of public or -private debts, such property can never be the subject of reprisal, -because this would be to authorize a breach of public faith; but -reprisals are always to be made on property in possession of the nation -who has done the injury, and which may be taken without any violation of -those principles, which ought to be held sacred in time of war. - -Mr. S. remarked, that it had been suggested that the British nation had -been guilty of a violation of the laws of nations in their treatment of -us; and that, therefore, we were not bound to govern ourselves by that -law in our conduct towards them. This argument, however plausible, he -said, would not bear the test of examination; that all reprisals were -justified only on the principle that the nation on whom reprisal is made -has been guilty of a previous violation of the laws of nations. When a -nation disregards that general law by which the conduct of all -independent communities towards each other is to be regulated, the same -law points out the mode of redress. If there has been no violation of -that law, there can be no reprisal. If there has been a violation, then -the reprisal must be pursuant to the law, for it is the highest -absurdity to say, that because there has been an infraction of a law -which authorizes a certain mode of redress, that we may pursue a -different mode of redress in violation of the law which gives us the -right. This would be at once to renounce the whole system of the laws of -nations, and throw mankind back into a state of savage barbarity and -ferocity. - -Mr. S. then adverted to the policy of the measure. He said, upon a fair -calculation, it would be found that the adoption of the proposition -would be productive of far greater injury to this country than the -amount of the losses sustained by our citizens in consequence of the -spoliations committed upon our commerce. It is evident that this -country, even admitting that a war should take place, would wish to -renew their commercial connection with Great Britain. But if, in -contempt of the law of nations, we seize on private debts, we shall for -ever forfeit all credit; no trust can be reposed in our citizens, and no -faith in our Government. No foreign merchants will ever deal on credit -with our citizens, from a well-guarded apprehension that, in case of a -war between the countries, the sacred nature of private contracts will -not protect them against the hand of a Government which has exhibited -the example of a deliberate violation of the laws of nations. When we -consider the immense advantages that can be derived from private credit -and national honor, it will be easy to imagine the infinite mischief -that must result from a disregard of those principles. - -Mr. S. objected to the measure on the ground that he considered it to be -a declaration of war; and he did not think that the circumstances -required or justified our taking that step. He said that notwithstanding -the unwarrantable proceedings of the British nation; yet, no act had -been done by the British Court that clearly indicated an intention to -make war directly upon us, or that could be considered as direct and -intentional war, though we might consider many of their acts as just -causes of making war on our part. - -The revocation of the Order of the 6th of November, the new instructions -of the 8th of January, and the explanation given to the merchants of -London, clearly evidenced that a war might be avoided with that nation. -While there was the remotest possibility of preserving our peace we -ought not to do an act which might endanger a war. While then the -conduct of the British Cabinet would admit of an explanation, while -there was a prospect that we might obtain by negotiation restitution of -the property of our citizens or compensation for the losses they had -sustained, we ought to pursue that mode; but if we proceeded to make -reprisals by adopting an illegal measure, it must certainly be deemed a -declaration of war. - -The omission of the regular means of obtaining satisfaction by -negotiation, and an unwarrantable mode of reprisal, would certainly be -just causes of war. If we must be driven into a war, it would be of the -highest advantage to us to conduct it in such a manner as to convince -the people of Great Britain that we sincerely wished to avoid it, and -that the unjust and illegal proceedings of their own court have been the -sole cause of the war. In such a case we have reason to think, that so -great is the interest of that nation in preserving our commercial -connection, that a powerful party will be formed in our favor to oppose -the injustice of the Government. The sentiments of the people will be -against the war, and the court will find it extremely difficult to -maintain it under such circumstances. - -But if, without demanding an explanation, we proceed to adopt rash, -violent, and unwarrantable measures, the spirit of the nation will rise -against us, and the people will join the court in prosecuting a war -which will be then deemed just and necessary. - -Mr. S. then observed that we ought to take into consideration the -present situation of Europe; that the late successes of the French -nation had materially changed the political prospect. It was possible -that these successes had been the cause which had produced an alteration -in the views of the British Court. If events had happened which had -rendered the disposition of that nation less unfriendly and hostile, we -ought to take advantage of that circumstance, and not do any thing to -check the progress of that favorable disposition. He most sincerely -hoped that these successes would convince the combined powers of the -impossibility to conquer France, and produce a general pacification. - -While such were the prospects, he ardently wished that a measure -repugnant to the principles of common honesty and common justice might -be rejected; and he hoped that no gentleman in the committee would vote -in favor of a proposition which would fix an indelible stigma on our -national character. - -The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again. - - -THURSDAY, April 10. - -_Non-Intercourse with Great Britain._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on -the motion of the 7th instant, to prohibit all commercial intercourse -between the citizens of the United States and the subjects of the King -of Great Britain, so far as the same respects articles of the growth or -manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said he was sorry to rise, unprepared as he was, as he had -yesterday occupied as great a portion of the time of the committee as -perhaps he was entitled to. He had hoped some other gentleman would have -risen, who, having better arranged his ideas than himself, had a -preferable claim to the attention of the committee. Unprepared as he -was, he could not permit a question so important as that under -consideration to pass, without entering against it his solemn protest: a -question involving the dearest interests of our country, and threatening -to exchange the unexampled prosperity it had for some years enjoyed, for -all the horrors of war. He said he the more regretted the part he was -obliged to take on this occasion, because he feared he should, in his -vote, divide from many gentlemen whom he much respected; but as his -opinion had been formed on mature deliberation, neither his honor, his -conscience, nor the duty he owed to his country, would permit him to be -silent. If the evils he foresaw should result from the measure under -consideration, he wished it might be known that no part of them could -with justice be imputed to him as their author. If, therefore, he should -be so unfortunate as to stand single and alone, he would not fail to -oppose, as far as he could, the measure before the committee. - -That injuries unprovoked and inexcusable had been inflicted by Great -Britain on this country, was acknowledged by all. No man felt stronger -indignation than himself at the insults which had been offered to our -country, and the wrongs which had been done to our citizens; no man was -less disposed tamely to bear the haughty and unprovoked aggressions of -any foreign nation; no man would go further to procure redress for our -wounded honor, and indemnification for our injured citizens. If, after -seeking reparation in the way dictated by prudence and humanity, happily -prescribed by the modern usages of civilized nations and commanded by -the principle of religion; if fair negotiation should be tried, and -justice not obtained, he would then seek redress by the means which God -and nature had given us. He remembered well the miseries and vices of -war, a war in which he had taken a part. It was a war of honor and -interest: he well remembered its circumstances and effects. He had lived -to see the wastes of that war repaired; to see a state of order and -security; to see his country progressing in all the means of happiness. -No man who loved his country, and rejoiced in its prosperity, would -consent, but from inevitable necessity, to see it again plunged in the -horrors of war. - -Although all combined in opinion that our injuries were great, that they -must be redressed, yet no one had suggested that war should precede -negotiation. Respecting this, there was happily but one opinion. On -every side of the House, it was acknowledged a duty indispensable in our -present situation, to state our complaints of injuries to the authors of -them, and to demand redress. We were only divided as to the manner of -our application, and the circumstances under which our demand should be -made. He had already, on another occasion, taken the liberty to declare -his opinion of the line of conduct which was dictated by our present -situation; that we should manifest that we are averse to war; but, -should it become inevitable, we should encounter it with that undaunted -spirit which became freemen, insulted in their honor and injured in -their rights. He had the most perfect confidence in the bravery of our -citizens. At the same time that he knew they would never surrender their -rights, he was sensible that they would avoid, if possible, an -unnecessary and wanton effusion of blood. - -Gentlemen had disclaimed any intention to adopt any measures tending to -war; they had said this measure had no tendency to such an event. This -assertion he could not believe, because this measure contained a threat -of inconvenience; and every threat of inconvenience was a cause of -irritation, and every irritation between nations who had already -differences to decide, undoubtedly tended to widen the breach, and of -course to produce war. If gentlemen were sincere in their declarations, -that all differences between America and Great Britain should be -terminated by peaceable negotiation, (and he would not call their -sincerity in question;) if Great Britain was proud, haughty, and -insolent, as she had been repeatedly denominated, was it probable, he -asked, that she would be more inclined to do us justice, by enlisting -her pride and insolence against us? - -Mr. S. said, that the late violences by which the property of our -citizens had been plundered, were the immediate and avowed cause of the -present measure; that as yet no representation of these injuries--no -demand for compensation had been made; that such representation and -demand should precede hostility was conceded by all. It only then -remained to be considered, in what terms and manner such claim should be -exhibited. In terms, he said, doubtless firm and decided; but if it was -intended to produce the desired effect of peace, and to prevent -hostility, the language should be decent and conciliatory. He called on -gentlemen to show an instance, in modern times, where a nation -complaining of injuries, but desirous of peace, had accompanied their -demands of justice with threats of inconvenience? The opposite practice -was universally established, and on the known principles of human -nature. He appealed to the feelings of every honorable man in the -committee, whether demands for justice and reparation for injuries were -enforced by threats? whether repugnance to a compliance with such -demands was not created by such means? If every man felt the operation -of this principle, how much more powerful would it be on the minds of -the governors of a nation styled proud and insolent? He said he would -charge no man with an intention to involve this country in all the -horrors and desolating scenes of war. He could not, however, help -declaring, that war or amicable negotiation evidently must decide the -controversies between America and Great Britain, and that were his mind -determined on the former, he should recommend those measures which -gentlemen had brought forward to the consideration of the House, as the -most operative means of rendering the event certain, and of banishing -every prospect of accommodation. To seize on British property, to -confiscate or sequester British debts, to annihilate as far as in our -power her commerce, to starve her manufacturers, and to humble her -pride; these were infallible means of defeating negotiation, and of -uniting, as one man, that nation against us, in all the views of her -administration. - -It had been said, that a principal benefit to be expected from the -institution of Republican Government was, that cool and temperate -reflection would direct the conduct of nations. How far our conduct on -this occasion had verified such an expectation, he wished gentlemen to -reflect. He had himself fondly hoped, in the Government of this country, -to have seen these principles exemplified, and all intemperance of -expression, and all the heat of passion, banished. It had been said, -that a statesman should be all intellect: never, surely, was a time or a -country, which more required than the present time, and by this country, -the exercise of cool temper, to the exclusion of passion, to conduct -with safety the political machine through surrounding dangers. He well -remembered a former non-importation agreement; he remembered, too, its -effects: they were such as might have been expected; they were such as -to convince every cool and considerate man, that the measure itself was -impolitic and unwise. It immediately raised the price of all articles of -importation to an exorbitant and extravagant height. Hence it was -immediately beneficial to importers and shopkeepers, and hence it may be -easy to understand why this measure was said to be so popular in -Philadelphia and other great towns. But as the Representatives of the -whole people of America, the Legislature ought to reflect, that in -proportion as this measure would operate beneficially to the dealers in -imported commodities, it would become burdensome and oppressive to those -who are best entitled to our regard--the substantial yeomanry of the -country--on whom we must principally depend for support, in the arduous -conflict which we had too much reason to apprehend. If we must -eventually support our claims by arms, the more property we could import -before the commencement of war, the more beneficial would it be. In that -case, the most wise and prudent policy would be, that which would give -the greatest extent to our credit; and, on the contrary, the most unwise -and wretched, that which would tend to deprive our people of the -ordinary means of supplies. - -If this system should prevail, were we to receive British productions -through other countries? This would be injuring ourselves, without -affecting Great Britain. Was there any other country which could give us -the same supplies we wanted? There certainly was none. Were we to depend -on ourselves alone, the inconvenience would be great, if not -intolerable. What, he further asked, would become of our produce, in the -event contemplated? Without entering into a minute detail, he said, he -would venture to pronounce that a great part of it would perish on our -hands. - -It was, he said, doubtful, how far at any time the proposed system might -go to distress Great Britain; but, at this time, it would afford -facility to her in recruiting her fleets and armies. Were manufacturers -and laborers thrown out of employment, and thereby deprived of bread, -they would be alike stimulated by want and despair to fight the battles -of their country against those who had reduced them to necessity. In -short, he saw nothing which should stimulate the Legislature to adopt -this measure, but passion without, and resentment within, these walls. -He saw nothing in the system itself, as it respected Great Britain, but -vain and ineffectual irritation; nothing in relation to our own country, -but defeat, wretchedness, and want. - -He said he had taken the liberty to suggest to the committee certain -constitutional considerations. The answers which had been given had been -by no means satisfactory. It was incumbent on gentlemen who had so -frequently warned us of the danger of usurping power--who had so -frequently, and in language so animated, charged us to avoid grasping -power, by implication and construction; it was incumbent on those -gentlemen, would they preserve consistency of character, clearly to -demonstrate the authority which they assumed, that it might not be -supposed that their construction of the constitution was a convenient -accommodation to the existing circumstances. It was not now a question -whether the people had made a wise or prudent distribution of the powers -of their Government: they had declared their will, and that will we were -bound by every consideration of honor and duty to execute. In the -instrument under which we acted, they had declared that the PRESIDENT, -under certain modifications, should be their organ, to treat exclusively -with foreign powers. This authority, thus exclusively delegated, -includes all the terms on which a treaty could be formed. What was the -present measure? Prescribing the terms of treaty, and restraining the -constitutional power from treating on any other terms. If the -Legislature could prescribe those terms, in this instance, it may then -prescribe all the terms, in every instance; and of course control, in -all things, the exercise of that power. - -To this reasoning two answers have been given; the one by a gentleman -from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SMILIE,) that the Legislature might make such a -law, because the Executive could repeal it. He really could not -comprehend the force of the reasoning; he was glad, however he could, -with perfect confidence, contradict the assertion, which he was sure -would be a very disgusting one to the people of America. There was, in -fact, in no instance, an authority given to the Executive to repeal a -constitutional act of the Legislature. The other answer was that given -by a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. NICHOLAS,) that there could be no -objection to the exercise of this power, if it should be assented to by -the PRESIDENT and Senate. This was a still more extraordinary and -unsatisfactory answer than the other. It implied that the PRESIDENT and -Senate could make grants of power to this House not contained in the -constitution. To this he would answer, that all the powers which the -House could legally exercise, were expressed in the instrument under -which we acted; that those powers could be neither enlarged nor -abridged, by any man or body of men on earth, but in the way pointed out -by the instrument itself. - -Mr. S. said these considerations he had expressed without any previous -preparation, as they occurred to his mind. Should gentlemen who viewed -the subject in the light he did remain silent, he would, in the further -progress of this measure, he pledged himself, with more orderly -arrangement, and he hoped with more perspicuity and force, address -himself to the consideration of this committee, or of the House. It -would avail little to tell him that his opposition would be unpopular; -no man more than himself wished the good opinion of his countrymen, but -no personal inconvenience, no loss of fame or popular affection, should -ever induce him to see his country threatened with evils incalculable in -number and duration, without warning her of her danger; a country which -he loved, and which he might, on this occasion, be permitted to say, he -had long served with honest fidelity, and without a single instance of -sinister or mere personal regard. - -The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again. - - -FRIDAY, April 11. - -_Non-Intercourse with Great Britain._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the motion of the 7th instant, to prohibit all commercial intercourse -between the citizens of the United States and the subjects of the King -of Great Britain, so far as the same respects articles of the growth or -manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland. - -Mr. BOUDINOT first rose this day, and said: Mr. Chairman, in a question -of so much national importance, there needed no apology from any member -of the committee for claiming their attention, while he gave the reasons -for his vote. The impatience shown by his colleague, (Mr. CLARK,) or any -other gentleman, for the question, ought not to influence any member of -the committee. When the fate of a nation of as much consequence as the -United States, appeared to be suspended on a vote, the least to be -expected from gentlemen was, to act with freedom, deliberation and -independence. He supposed he should be among those who, at the taking of -the question, would probably be found in the minority. That this would -be his vote, if he was convinced that he should be single and alone. He -felt himself deeply and seriously affected with a view of the precipice -on which, in his apprehension, his country seemed to stand, and he -wished, for his own part, to take a full and deliberate view of it, -before he joined in precipitating a leap, that might not add to her -safety or happiness. Reasoning and not declamation should be expected -from gentlemen in favor of the measure under consideration. - -He said, he would address himself to the judgments, and not to the -passions of the committee. He acknowledged it might fall to his lot to -mistake the true and essential interests of his country; but, if this -should be the case, he had the satisfaction of knowing that it would -arise from the most honest and upright intentions. It was, therefore, on -these principles, that he should proceed in giving his opinion on the -important resolution on the table. - -But, before he went further, he could not forget the respectful -compliment paid yesterday by his honorable friend from Maryland (Mr. -SMITH) to his moderation and gray hairs; indeed, he should not have -taken it to himself, as he had the honor of having white, instead of -gray hairs, had not Mr. S.'s attention been immediately fixed on him. If -either age or moderation would command his worthy friend's close -consideration of this subject, he besought him, as well as the other -gentlemen of the committee, to join in attending to it calmly and -seriously for a few moments, before the die was cast. He said, he owed -much, on behalf of his country, to that gentleman for his services in -the field during the late war, when both his zeal and his passions were -rendered so eminently useful, that he could with pleasure apologize at -all times for his warmth and animation on any subject when their common -country was not to be affected. But would he permit him, earnestly, to -request that, with other members, he would call to mind, that they were -now the Representatives of four millions of people? That perhaps the -lives of thousands of their fellow-citizens were depending on a single -vote. That the welfare of a country dearer to them than life was at -stake. Gentlemen must, therefore, agree, that the question was a serious -one, and deserved to be treated with the most serious and deliberate -consideration. Judgment, and not resentment, should direct the final -determination, let it be what it may, and give a sanction to all their -measures. - -He observed, that gentlemen against the question had been accused of -want of propriety, in looking calmly, and without the exercise of their -passions, on the sufferings of the unhappy prisoners at Algiers, and the -piratical spoliations of our fellow-citizens in the West Indies. Yes, -sir, said he, when he knew that it was neither passion nor declamation -that could afford effective relief to these suffering members of the -political body, he should continue to persist in that steady, serious, -and deliberate line of conduct, that, in his estimation, was only -calculated to produce that permanent and efficient aid and relief, which -their extreme distress so loudly called for; but, in his turn, he asked -gentlemen to give up their warmth on this occasion, that they might also -reflect, even without passion, on the number of their fellow-citizens -that must fall a sacrifice in the most successful war. Will not -gentlemen weigh well that vote, that may possibly increase the number of -mourning widows and helpless orphans? - -These considerations had led him to consider the measure now proposed, -as of great moment and importance, and to wish it might be reasoned on -and considered in a manner becoming Legislators and Representatives of -United America, who have been sent here as her counsellors and trustees, -and to whom she has committed her best and most sacred interests. He -said, for argument's sake, and to simplify the debate, lest he should be -drawn into unnecessary disputation, he should concede for the present: -the constitutionality of the resolution proposed; the right of the -committee to originate and determine on the measure; the unprovoked -aggressions of Great Britain to warrant and justify the prohibition. - -These arguments had been repeated and urged with great apparent force, -by gentlemen in favor of the affirmative side of the question; but, were -the principles arising from these facts sufficient to justify a -determination in favor of so harsh and unprecedented a proceeding, -without previously demanding an explanation and full indemnification, -agreeably to the customs and usages of other nations? - -Would arguments of this kind satisfy our constituents, if they should -find themselves suddenly plunged into an expensive and ruinous war? -Would it not very naturally be asked, why were not the true interests of -the United States under these existing circumstances carefully inquired -into, and made the principal and leading object of attentive -consideration? In his opinion, this should peculiarly be the sum of -their present inquiry--was it not the duty of the committee critically -to examine into the preparation they were in for a step, that, in the -imagination of some gentlemen of character and reputation, at the last, -might precipitate our country into an immediate war? Were our ports and -harbors in any tolerable state of defence? Were our magazines and -arsenals properly supplied? Were our citizens in a state of organization -as militia? In short, did not the measure threaten a sudden transition -from a state of profound peace and happiness, unequalled by any nation, -into a state of war and bloodshed, without taking those previous and -prudent measures that might probably lead to an avoidance of this -national evil, or at all events enable us to meet it with decision and -effect? - -Gentlemen had referred the committee to the conduct of America in 1776, -and the success of the late war has been urged for our encouragement. -The non-importation agreement has been recurred to as a precedent in -point. He said, he was well acquainted with most of the events of the -late Revolution. The first motions towards it, found him engaged in the -common cause, and his best endeavors to complete and secure it had never -since been wanting. He well remembered the consequences of the -non-importation agreement, and the sufferings of our brave -fellow-citizens from that imprudent measure. He had tracked them over -the frozen ground by their blood, from the want of shoes, and was -sensible that many had perished by the inclemency of the season, for -want of tents and clothing: that agreement was universally reprobated, -as a measure imprudently entered into on the principle of expecting to -be involved in a war, which had it been then contemplated, nothing could -have justified. Mr. B. appealed to the knowledge of many men who heard -him, that this agreement had often been urged to Great Britain, as a -conclusive evidence, that at the time of its adoption, America had not -the least intention of independence, or a separation from the mother -country; otherwise, she could never have been guilty of so impolitic a -resolution. He asked, then, if the committee would now repeat the -mistake with their eyes open, and expose our country to the same -misfortunes, and our fellow-citizens to a repetition of sufferings, by a -measure that promised not one important advantage to the Union that he -had heard of? In the late war, America had all the ports and harbors of -the other European nations open to her, but now circumstances would be -altered; in case of a war the very reverse would be our position, -excepting as to those of France. - -Mr. B. confessed, that his arguments were founded on his conviction that -the resolution was a measure that would necessarily produce war, -immediate, inevitable war. - -His reasons were drawn from the present state of Great Britain, being in -alliance with the principal powers of Europe, and under treaties to make -all wars, arising from the united opposition to France, a common cause. - -The necessity she would have of employing her supernumerary hands, if -not in manufactures, in her armies and navies, to prevent trouble at -home, added to her old grudge against us on account of principles that -promise much trouble to all the monarchs of Europe: her late conduct -with regard to our trade, founded on the instructions of the 8th of -June, and 6th November last: her withholding the posts, contrary to -every principle of justice and good faith, and against the most positive -assurances: and lastly, from the anxiety to regain the territory between -the Lakes and the Mississippi;--he agreed that neither of these singly, -nor even the whole together, could justify her in her own opinion, in -making an open attack upon us, but might tempt her to construe the -measure before the committee into an act of hostility on our part, as -contrary to our professed neutrality. He said, it was a point conceded -in the laws of nations, that granting to one of the belligerent powers -advantages in your ports which were refused to another, was a breach of -neutrality. - -The object with Great Britain would be, to convince her allies, that the -aggression arose on account of the war with France, to prevail on them -to make it a common cause; and in this they would not want plausible -evidence. It was not sufficient, he alleged, that we knew ourselves -innocent of the charge. We should be prudently careful not unnecessarily -to give reason to justify the construction. If the previous steps of -negotiation, used by all civilized nations, were neglected, they would -have the advantage of the argument, and we should injure ourselves. He -asked if any gentleman would say that a prohibition of commerce at the -eve of a war, or even the apprehension of it, was wisely calculated to -clothe an army, replenish our magazines, supply our arsenals, or provide -a revenue by which to support a war? - -He wished every member had taken the trouble he had done, of looking -into their stores, inquiring what was on hand, calculating what would be -absolutely necessary, and reflecting seriously and dispassionately on -the sources of supply. If they had, he doubted not but that they would -find something more than passion and resentment necessary, to meet the -probable consequences of so premature a determination. - -It was no uncommon thing for gentlemen to differ on important measures; -and he would not even insinuate, that he might not be found wrong in -these ideas, and wholly mistaken in his conjectures on this occasion, -but he begged members to consider the different ground on which the two -sides of the House stood. If the minority, of whom he expected to be -one, should in the end be found to have been alarmed with consequences -altogether unfounded, and that the issue proved successful to the peace -of our common country, they would have the happiness of rejoicing with -the majority in their superior wisdom and foresight; and though even -they should suffer in character, yet their country would be saved. But -if the minority should in the end be right, and our country should be -deluged in a destructive war, and her best interests be endangered by -the discovery of the mistake too late for redress, gentlemen in favor of -the resolution, would seriously regret that they had not at least used -more caution. - -He said, as at present advised, he should give his vote against the -resolution. It would be from a thorough conviction, on the most careful -examination, that the resolution was against the interest and welfare of -the United States, all circumstances considered. And this he should do, -wholly regardless of the malevolent insinuations, that Britain had an -influence in that House. He felt a conscious dignity of mind, a virtuous -pride of heart, in believing that it was not all the wealth of that -opulent nation could purchase his influence to a single measure -injurious to his country; and under that conviction, he could not -believe there was a member of the committee in a different predicament. - -He again repeated, that he should most sincerely rejoice, if this -measure should be adopted, to find, in the end, that his mind had viewed -it, as productive of consequences that were wholly unfounded; and, -although under his present view of the subject, considering it as -inimical to his country, he was bound in conscience to vote against it, -yet the councils of America were directed by superior wisdom, and that -this country had reaped the rich harvest of peace and happiness. But it -might now be asked, if it was meant passively to submit to the injuries -acknowledged on all hands to have been sustained by the imperious and -overbearing conduct of Great Britain? He answered no, by no means. - -He would follow the examples and pursue the measures of other nations in -like circumstances--examples and measures founded in policy and sound -understanding. He would, by a special envoy, make known to that court -our sense of her unwarrantable aggressions; he would demand immediate -indemnification for the present, and security against future sufferings -of the like nature--insist on a categorical answer, after applying to -her justice and best interests; and if at last a war must be the only -means of obtaining justice, he would then (being previously prepared) -meet it as became a free and independent nation, trusting to the -righteousness of her cause. - -By this means, the other nations of Europe would be made acquainted with -our complaints--become witnesses to our love of peace, and bear -testimony to the justice of our appeal to arms. He said, he had fully -considered the question--he had viewed it in every point of light--he -had endeavored to consider the consequences which most probably would -arise from it, and he could not convince his mind, that the measure -would be productive of any good to the United States, while it offered -many reasons to conclude, that it might be fraught with the greatest -evil. In case of the most successful war, America had nothing to gain, -while her loss of blood and treasure was sure and certain. He had once -flattered himself that this was the only country on the globe, whose -interest it was to be at peace with all the world, and at the same time -the interest of all the world to be at peace with us. But he feared we -had been so much actuated by a resentment of injuries received, as to -lose sight of our true interests under existing circumstances, and, -therefore, should be hurried into measures we might hereafter have -reason seriously to lament. - -The committee now rose. - - -MONDAY, April 21. - -_Non-Intercourse with Great Britain._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the resolution reported by the -Committee of the whole House on the fifteenth instant, to prohibit all -commercial intercourse between the citizens of the United States and the -subjects of the King of Great Britain, or the citizens or subjects of -any other nation, so far as the same respects articles of the growth or -manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland; and the amendment and -modification thereof, which was proposed on Friday last, being further -considered and debated, the said resolution was amended to read as -follows: - - "Whereas, the injuries which have been suffered, and may be - suffered, by the United States, from violations committed - by Great Britain on their neutral rights and commercial - interests, as well as from her failure to execute the - seventh[50] article of the Treaty of Peace, render it - expedient for the interest of the United States, that the - commercial intercourse between the two countries should not - continue to be carried on in the extent at present allowed: - - "_Resolved_, That, from and after the first day of November - next, all commercial intercourse between the citizens of - the United States and the subjects of the King of Great - Britain, or the citizens or subjects of any other nation, - so far as the same respects articles of the growth or - manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland shall be - prohibited:" - -And then the main question being put, that this House doth agree to the -said resolution, as amended, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas -58, nays 38, as follows: - - YEAS.--James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, - John Beatty, Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel - Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Abraham Clark, Isaac Coles, - William J. Dawson, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, William - Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, William B. Giles, James - Gillespie, Nicholas Gilman, Christopher Greenup, Andrew - Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, George Hancock, - Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, John Heath, John - Hunter, William Irvine, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, - Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander - Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, William Vans - Murray, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John Nicholas, - Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, - Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John S. - Sherburne, John Smilie, Israel Smith, Samuel Smith, Thomas - Sprigg, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, - Benjamin Williams, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston. - - NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, - Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg - Coffin, Joshua Coit, Samuel Dexter, Uriah Forrest, Dwight - Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, - James Gordon, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse, William - Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned, - Richard Bland Lee, Francis Malbone, Theodore Sedgwick, - Jeremiah Smith, William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Silas - Talbot, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, - John E. Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, - Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, John Watts, and Paine - Wingate. - - -MONDAY, April 28. - -ALEXANDER GILLON, from South Carolina, appeared, produced his -credentials, and took his seat. - - -MONDAY, May 12. - -_The Embargo._ - -On a motion made and seconded, that the House do come to the following -resolution: - - "_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of - the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That - the present Embargo be continued, and every regulation - therein shall be in full force until the twentieth day of - June next:" - -Mr. PARKER observed, that, although he was much in favor of the Embargo -when it was first enacted, yet, at the present time, he thought it would -be improper to continue it. - -At that time, a system was formed by a majority of the House, for -carrying into effect measures that might counteract the nefarious -practices of the British Government on our commerce; that the first -object which presented itself to him was to lay an embargo, in order -that the large fleets and armies of the British in the West Indies, who -were there on a design to conquer the islands of our friends, and had -committed robberies on neutral property, that would disgrace a banditti -of pirates; and, in order that they should be deprived of the supplies -which they might require, as well as to prevent the further capture of -our vessels, and treating the American flag and citizens with insult and -cruelty, I thought that would be the stepping-stone to other measures -which were concerted to oppose the insults of our enemies, and doing -justice to our citizens, whose property had been robbed and persons -abused by British armed vessels; that this was to be followed by a bill -which had passed the House of Representatives by a great majority for -breaking off all commerce with Great Britain after November next, and -this was to be followed by an arrestation of British property, to -reimburse our citizens for the losses we had sustained; that, as the -second measure was rejected by the voice of the VICE PRESIDENT in -Senate, which had broken the chain; and, as the PRESIDENT had appointed -a pacific Envoy Extraordinary to the British Court, and as the fleets -and armies of the British in the West Indies, under Sir John Jervis and -Sir Charles Grey, had captured most of the French islands, he thought it -would be improper to continue the Embargo, the more so as the PRESIDENT, -by slipping in and arresting the progress of the Representatives, no -doubt, with a certain hope of the continuance of peace, and being -responsible therefor, he deemed it best not to interfere, and to give up -every further prospect of hostility, until the event of the mission to -Britain shall be known. - -Another reason that operated very forcibly with him, was, that our -French friends were much in want of provisions; and, as there was no -prospect of discriminations in their favor, which he had wished for, he -should give it as his opinion, that it would be improper to continue the -Embargo after the 25th instant. - -From the commencement of the administration of this Government, certain -gentlemen, and particularly those of the Eastern States, had been -charged with regulating their political conduct by local considerations. -They had disregarded the interest of every part of the United States, -but the particular districts of country from which they came. The charge -was now reversed: those districts have suffered infinitely beyond their -neighbors, by the effects of those measures of which we complain; and, -notwithstanding all this, the Representatives of those districts have -all at once so totally changed, have become so tame, so torpid, as to be -regardless of the interests and sufferings of their immediate -constituents. Nor (said he) is this all; our kind Southern brethren -have, from pure disinterested benevolence and with a most acute -sensibility, determined to procure for our constituents that redress to -which we are indifferent. - -It had been said, that the gentlemen who were in favor of -indemnification had opposed every measure of energy. They had, indeed, -opposed certain measures to which they would give a very different -appellation. They had not only favored, but had been the authors of -every measure of respectable efficiency, as well in respect to force, as -the means of defraying the expenses which our situation had rendered it -necessary should be incurred. He need not say who had opposed those -measures. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS hoped that the House would not agree to the resolution. -He stated the numerous inconveniences which had arisen from the measure -already. The system of British conduct was now altered. There were at -present many ships detained in the harbors of the United States, that -were cleared out before the Embargo was laid. Their detention, as far as -he could learn, was contrary to the common practice of nations, in cases -of that nature. - -Mr. W. SMITH said, that the reason why the Embargo had been laid on was, -the piracies of Britain. The second orders of the 8th of January last -had produced no alteration for the better in the conduct of her -privateers. We had yet heard nothing from the agents despatched to the -West Indies; and we ought not to revoke the Embargo till some change of -system, on the part of Britain, should warrant the measure; we knew -nothing about the actual state of matters in the West Indies. The -newspapers were filled with stories of releasing American vessels in one -island, and of capturing them in another. One captain had come to this -port, and told a story to the editor of a newspaper. He then went to -another publisher of a paper, and told a story _quite opposite_! The -House could make nothing of such a farrago--such a jumble of -contradictory reports. The public sentiment was against taking off the -Embargo. - -Mr. WADSWORTH was against the motion. It had been said that American -ships did not arrive from the West Indies. They did arrive in great -numbers, and as quickly as could be expected. From this he inferred that -the ravages of British privateers had, in a great measure, ceased. -Insurance at present is not higher than ten per cent. A million of -bushels of salt will be wanted this season in the American States; and -they will be a million of dollars dearer, if the Embargo is kept on, -than if it is taken off. Mr. W. said, that he had got home all his -importations for this year. He had nothing, therefore, to apprehend on -his own account, from the continuance of the Embargo. It was his firm -opinion, and he could declare it upon his honor to be so, that, if the -Embargo continued, the value of his own imports would rise one hundred -per cent. He believed that salt would rise to three dollars a bushel. - -Mr. NICHOLAS had approved of the Embargo when imposed; and he now hoped -that it would be repealed by as great a majority as that which voted for -laying it on. - -Mr. GILES recommended a discontinuance of the Embargo. The gentleman -from South Carolina had urged the public sentiment as a reason for -keeping it on. He was glad to hear that the public sentiment was an -argument in that House for the adoption of measures; and he was -particularly highly pleased that this respect for the public sentiment -had now come from the quarter from which it was at present announced. He -hinted that the gentleman (Mr. W. SMITH) had not always paid an equal -deference to public sentiment. He was for the Embargo being taken off, -because he understood that France would suffer considerably by its -continuance; because it would materially affect the American farmers; -and because, as the danger was now more fully known, merchants would -beware of the danger, and provide more or less for their individual -security. Farmers in the United States had entered into contracts of -various kinds. For the discharge of these, they depended on the sale of -their crops. He was originally for the measure, which had answered many -good purposes, by preventing American vessels from falling into the -hands of British privateers. He was likewise for it, as connected with a -system of other measures. [Mr. G. alluded to the sequestration of -British property, &c.] These measures had been laid aside; and -therefore, he would now likewise be for laying this aside. - -Mr. DAYTON said, that he had been in favor of laying the Embargo, both -in the first month and in the second month of its continuance; but he -should now be opposed to the proposition on the table, and against -extending the Embargo beyond the 25th of this month, when the present -one would expire. He would not be understood to found any part of his -conduct upon a belief that there was a returning sense of justice in the -Government of Great Britain, or that there had been any material change -in the predatory system. He lamented that any of those who were on the -same side should have entertained such a belief, and especially that -they should have mentioned it as an argument against the motion. Where, -he asked, was the proof that the instructions of the 8th of January had -effected a change favorable to this country in the conduct of that -nation? If there was such a change, as some gentlemen asserted, where -were the two or three hundred American vessels that have been captured -and carried into the British West India Islands? If we look for them in -our ports they are not to be found. It is true, that now and then a -solitary vessel enters into our harbors, escaped from British -depredation; but you would hear the seamen who arrived felicitating one -another almost as much as if they had escaped from the clutches of -pirates. He said that those instructions might make them more complacent -highwaymen, but still they would be highwaymen. They might practice a -little more of the solemn mockery of judicial process; they might be a -little more observant of forms; but they had since continued, and would -probably continue to rob us. He mentioned those things to show that -there were other considerations which influenced him. These were, that -an embargo would operate hereafter most unfavorably for ourselves, -particularly our farmers, and for our allies, the French. Produce, he -said, would certainly fall much lower, if we continued the Embargo -longer than the 25th. Our farmers and planters depend upon the sale of -that produce to pay their debts, or to purchase necessaries for their -families; and the resolution on the table would operate doubly hard for -them, not only in lowering the value of the product of their farms, but -by increasing the price of every foreign article which they would need -to purchase from the merchants. The injury which its further continuance -would occasion to our allies, the French, had great weight with him in -opposing it. It could not be denied, that France was much more dependent -upon this country for supplies of provisions, in her present arduous -struggle, than any other nation, or than all others; and he inferred -from thence, that there could not be a disposition in that House to -extend a prohibition which should add to the sufferings of those who are -fighting in the cause of liberty against the most powerful combination -that was ever formed to crush it. - -Mr. DEXTER was likewise for taking off the Embargo. It was become pretty -evident that the United States are not in immediate danger of -hostilities. It was difficult to continue the Embargo till we could hear -from Mr. Jay, which might require six months. Farmers suffer as much by -the present restraint upon commerce as they would suffer by war. - -Mr. CLARK was for letting the Embargo die of itself. He did not think it -quite fair for gentlemen all to speak upon one side of a question. There -was another embargo that Mr. C. wished to see taken off as soon as it -could be done with propriety. We have been embargoed in this House, said -he, for six months, and if we persist in this habit of making fine -speeches upon every occasion, it will be a long time before this second -Embargo can be taken off. - -Mr. GILLON desired that the matter might have a full discussion. He and -his colleague from Charleston supported the motion by order of their -constituents. - -Mr. HUNTER then laid on the table a letter subscribed by forty-eight of -the merchants and other citizens of Charleston, who had suffered by the -piracies of Britain, with a list of the ships thus taken, and an -estimate of their value. The letter was read by the Clerk. - -Mr. GILLON then proceeded to make a variety of remarks in support of the -motion before the House. He apologized, if any part of what he had to -say, should seem a digression, as the subject was of so great an extent. -Mr. G. said, that he remembered, in that Assembly, in 1777, they had -used to flatter themselves, that the Eastern States would build ships, -and the Southern would supply them with cargoes; and they would mutually -support the interest of each other. He regretted that this cordiality -was not, on the present occasion, so ardent as could have been wished. -As to Britain relaxing her outrages in the West Indies, the sole object -of that nation is gain, no matter by what means it could be obtained. -Mr. G., to show the infamy of Britain in its proper light, quoted some -passages from the letter of a captain in the West Indies, who had -received the most unprovoked and the most horrible treatment from these -miscreants. - -Mr. G. hoped that the Embargo would continue for a longer period than to -the 25th of June, the term specified in the resolution. He recommended -that the House should adjourn but for a short time, and continue the -restriction till they sat again. It had been said, that this step would -injure our allies; that the price of imports would rise, while that of -exports would fall. He would be one of the last men willing to distress -our allies. He hoped that the Embargo might be restricted, so as to let -the French import from this country whatever they wanted in American -bottoms. This would promote our commerce, if gentlemen acquainted with -that business considered the measure as practicable. Reverting to the -remarks of Mr. WADSWORTH, Mr. G. observed, that salt is at present only -three shillings and sixpence or four shillings a bushel in Charleston. -The price has fallen there, and it has not even risen at Philadelphia. -He did not see much danger of a rise in the price of foreign articles -here; merchant ships came at present frequently to this country. They -encourage one another, as sure of a high market; and as to the Embargo, -they say that it cannot hold long. If the British depredations have -ceased, it certainly is not owing to any change of principle in them. -But our ships are kept safe at home in our harbors; their British system -changes with the course of events in Europe. No nation is more insolent -in prosperity; none more humiliated in adversity. Mr. G. concluded by -expressing a hope that some way might be contributed for keeping on an -embargo, without injury to the farmers. If this could not be done, it -must be taken off. - -Mr. MURRAY hoped that the resolution would not succeed. Indeed he -thought, that a total refusal of its terms would consist of our true -policy. He said, he was among those who supported the first unsuccessful -vote for an embargo, and had in each following vote been for it. There -were two reasons that had led him to think the Embargo a good measure, -when it was laid, and continued: the risk the American trade and seamen -were exposed to from that infamous course of depredation which followed -the Order of the 6th of November, and the evidence that flowed from that -order of an intention to involve this country in war. The depredation on -our trade had been immense; and the Embargo was not only defensible as a -good cautionary measure, to secure the seamen and vessels of this -country from violence, but by shutting out our vessels from the -opportunity of being longer exposed to British depredation, the -occasions would be diminished that would bring up the irksome question, -how far Government is bound to indemnify citizens for losses sustained -under a violation of the laws of nations? The same act under which the -depredations had been committed, manifested a spirit of hostility that -betrayed the probability of war. He had believed when he voted for the -Embargo, that there was something of system in the November 6th Order. -He thought that order was the first movement of a system of hostile -operations, which some intermediate events had set aside: of this, the -Order of the 8th January, and the subsequent dismissal of the captured -vessels, was evidenced. If the depredations have ceased, and the vessels -captured have been released, and if the probability of war be -diminished, the leading motives that justified so strong a measure had -ceased to operate. There can be no doubt that vessels that have been -taken have been released: the daily arrivals in various parts of the -Union prove this. Had the chance of war continued in full force, the -continuance of the Embargo, as is designed by this resolution, though it -stood on a prodigious sacrifice of present interest, would have been not -only defensible, but perhaps essential. It would not only prove -negatively a benefit in the preservation of our shipping and seamen, but -would operate, in the most sensible manner, as a withdrawal of supplies -from the power with whom hostilities might be expected. This great -sacrifice to policy he could not now believe to be necessary longer than -the term assigned by law--the 25th of this month. - -The reason why he had voted for the continuance of the Embargo, though -we had received intelligence of the revocation of the obnoxious and -shameful Order of 6th November, was, because he had lost all confidence -in the justice or wisdom of those who issued it; as he thought the first -unjust by premeditation, he had suspected the last as insidious; -however, this we know, that they have released our vessels. So very -extensive was the influence of embargoes in this country, that nothing -but dire necessity could justify them; a country with small capital and -yet of immense export, and a great part of that export of a quality that -could not endure the summer's heat. In such a moment as the present, -where evidence of the opinions of the public was so contradictory, he -would endeavor to do what appeared to be the broad and general interest. -There was, he believed, a field open to speculation by the doubt -entertained of this day's decision: a variety of opposite interests of -course was thus created, and opinions and wishes might be expected out -of doors from the different views of self-interest. Those who had to -purchase grain, for instance, calculating on the almost certain -termination of the Embargo some time this summer, and foreseeing great -prices in foreign markets, might, if they were actuated by selfish -principles, wish to see this resolution succeed. As the aspect of -affairs had certainly considerably altered, and the reasons that led to -the Embargo had so diminished as no longer to warrant either a dread of -the capture of our vessels or the apprehension of war, (at least -speedily,) he hoped the resolution would fail of success. - -Mr. BOUDINOT asked what assurance we have that Britain will not play the -same game over again that she has done already? Does not that new order -prohibit, as much as ever, American vessels from carrying provisions to -the West India Islands? As to the Republic of France, he could make -great allowances for their situation; but, after all, what apology could -there be made for the starving of American sailors in French harbors! Is -this proper! These men, as Mr. B. had been well informed, were at this -moment actually starving, and in want of the common necessaries of life. -If the Embargo is taken off, this must be done upon the principle that -it ought never to have been laid on. We must expect, that if our ships -go back again to the West Indies, they will be taken as formerly. He -could wish to stand by the measure, since it had once been adopted, and -let the West Indies see that we can starve them out; let them see that -we can make them feel the effects of our measures. He did not wish to -continue the Embargo one moment longer than public necessity requires; -but to have made the merchants and farmers suffer as they have done for -two months, and then to have the business end in nothing, was rather -vexatious. - -Mr. W. SMITH defended his resolution. It had been alleged, that -emigrants wanting to get back to the West Indies, were prevented by this -Embargo. Government had provided for that. The point, it is said, has -been determined, that the West Indies depend on America for subsistence. -He asserted, on the contrary, that this point was not determined; and -this revocation will prove to the world, that we are as eager to sell, -as they are to buy. He hoped that there was a spirit in this country to -stand the consequences of the measures. He next replied to the ironical -applause bestowed upon him in a former part of this debate, by Mr. -GILES, for his recently assumed respect to the public sentiment. He said -that it is often very difficult to say what public sentiment is. The -member himself had often opposed the public sentiment: he had opposed -the arming of frigates, and yet that was surely a popular measure. At -the same time, he hoped that no member would vote for a measure that his -judgment condemns, because it is said to be a popular one; as this would -reduce him to a mere puppet--a machine. It had been said, that this -Embargo should be taken off on account of France; but our vessels, if -that obstacle is removed, will not go to France: they will go to the -West Indies, where they can get thirty dollars a barrel for their flour, -which they cannot get in France. - -Mr. S. next adverted to the other Embargo, upon the members of the -House, referred to by Mr. CLARK. He hoped that public business would not -be treated with levity, and that they would rise, when they found it -convenient; but if the gentleman was so very impatient to get home, he -could be very well spared by the House. - -Mr. CLARK rose, and said a few words in reply. - -Mr. GILES approved of the idea of Mr. GILLON, as to the limiting the -Embargo to the sailing of vessels for the West Indies: and a resolution -to this effect was laid by the member on the table. Mr. G. thought this -a proper discrimination, and, if it could be effected, the true ground -that the House ought to take. As to what the farmers of America had -suffered by the Embargo, Mr. G. believed that there was not a single -planter in the district which he represented, who would not rather burn -his wheat, and dance round the bonfire, than sell it to the West Indies -to feed the British army. He would have brought forward a motion of this -nature sooner, but he had not thought that it would succeed, nor did he -think yet that it would. It would, however, show his sentiments, and he -hoped the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. W. SMITH,) if he was -anxious to support his reputation for consistency, would give his vote -for the resolution. - -And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the -said resolution, it passed in the negative--yeas 13, nays 73, as -follows: - - YEAS.--John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, Lambert Cadwalader, - George Dent, Alexander Gillon, Benjamin Goodhue, John - Hunter, Francis Malbone, Joseph Neville, John Page, William - Smith, Artemas Ward, and Richard Winn. - - NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, - Thomas Blount, Benjamin Bourne, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel - Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Abraham Clark, David Cobb, - Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, William J. Dawson, - Jonathan Dayton, Henry Dearborn, Samuel Dexter, William - Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, - William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Nicholas Gilman, Henry - Glenn, James Gordon, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, - Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, George Hancock, Daniel - Heister, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Amasa Learned, - Richard Bland Lee, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel - Macon, James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, - William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, William - Vans Murray, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, - Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston, Thomas - Scott, Theodore Sedgwick, John S. Sherburne, John Smilie, - Israel Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George - Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Thomas Tredwell, Jonathan Trumbull, - John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peter Van - Gaasbeck, Abraham Venable, Peleg Wadsworth, Jeremiah - Wadsworth, Francis Walker, John Watts, Benjamin Williams, - and Joseph Winston. - - -THURSDAY, May 15. - -_Indemnity for Spoliations._ - -Mr. GOODHUE moved the following resolution: - - "Whereas it is a primary object in the establishment of - Civil Government, to protect the persons and property of - its citizens from the violence of nations as well as - individuals; and whereas many of the citizens of the United - States have suffered great losses, by spoliation made on - their commerce, under the authority of Great Britain, in - violation of the law of nations and the rights of - neutrality, - - "_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of - the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That - the United States will guarantee an indemnification to all - such citizens of the United States, whose property may have - been captured and confiscated, under the authority of Great - Britain, in violation of the law of nations, and the rights - of neutrality." - -Mr. GOODHUE moved that the resolution might be referred to a Committee -of the whole House, which was seconded by Mr. DEXTER. It was then moved, -by way of amendment to the motion, by Mr. DAYTON, to add these words, -"to whom was referred the resolution, for the sequestration of British -debts:" to which Mr. GOODHUE objected, because, he said, the subjects -were distinct and separate in their nature and ought not to be combined. -His resolution went only to establish the principle of indemnification, -by guaranteeing it to the sufferers, leaving the fund from which it -should be made (in case Great Britain should refuse to do us justice) to -a future consideration. That whether British debts were sequestered or -not, he said, the United States were bound to see that indemnity was -made to the merchants whose property had been kidnapped in a secret, -clandestine manner, while pursuing a lawful trade, under the authority -of this Government and law of nations, or to give them an opportunity of -indemnifying themselves by making reprisals. That it was well known -there was great opposition to the sequestration of British debts, and it -was very doubtful whether such a measure would ever be adopted; and if -this resolution was to be referred to the same committee, and become -connected with that, he should very much despair of ever getting any -indemnification. That British debts were a very precarious and uncertain -fund; and the idea of ever getting indemnification from that source, -would operate as a delusion. That if sequestration, under any -circumstances, could be proper, it was highly improper at this time, -when an Envoy Extraordinary had just been despatched to Great Britain; -and more so, as we had discontinued the Embargo, which would put all our -remaining vessels in the power of that nation. He should, therefore, -consider an agreement to the amendment as amounting to a determination -not to consider the subject, at least for the present session. - -In support of the amendment, it was argued, that the two subjects had an -intimate connection with each other, and never ought to be separated; -that British debts and British property were the natural and only funds -for paying British depredations, and if indemnity was not given this -way, it ought not to be given at all; that, as it was probable the -resolution for sequestration would lie dormant for some time, it was -best to refer this to the same committee, that they might sleep -together. The amendment was supported by Messrs. LYMAN, NICHOLAS, -SMILIE, DEARBORN, and MADISON. - -Mr. DAYTON made a number of pointed remarks on what he considered as the -total futility of such a resolution. He looked on it as nothing better -than an awkward attempt to gain popularity. He complained bitterly of -the injustice of bringing up this motion alone; because when he voted -against it, it might be surmised that he was unfavorable to the redress -of the injuries of a certain class of citizens. He was for redressing -their wrongs, and he had marked out to the House the only effectual way -in which these wrongs should ever be redressed, viz: the sequestration -of British property. He adverted to an expression made use of, some days -ago, by Mr. SEDGWICK, who had called this a _mad_ project. Mr. D. was of -opinion that the _mad-cap_ might with propriety be transferred to a -different situation, which he specified to the House. He said, that we -were frequently told of the justice due to the British subjects. Be it -so. But was there no justice also due to the people of the United -States? And what justice could there be in attempting to make the -American citizens pay for depredations committed by British privateers, -when we had in our hands British property? Were we not bound to take as -much care of our own interest, as of that of other people? It had been -said, that as a negotiation was to commence under an Ambassador -Extraordinary, that this measure would impede its success. He was, on -the contrary, convinced that this was the only step that could be likely -to insure the success of Mr. Jay's mission. It would teach Britain to -give up her infamous conduct. It would convert, in the literal sense of -the word, every English manufacturing house, that had debts due to it in -this country, into an American negotiator; and they would, for their own -sakes, compel their Government to do justice to the American merchants. - -Mr. D. scouted the idea of taxing America, to pay for the depredations -committed in the West Indies. Supposing, what every gentleman in the -House knew to be impossible, that if Congress actually were to pass such -an act, the people would not submit to pay their money for any such -purpose. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, it certainly had not been his wish that the question -should be brought forward at the present time. As it was, however, -before the House, as he approved the motives of his colleague, who made -the motion, and as he perfectly concurred with him in opinion on the -subject, he would make a few concise observations. He believed, that in -a Government such as that of this country it was the peculiar duty of -those to whom the administration has been committed, to extend security -and protection to all the interests, and redress for all the injuries of -the citizens. That inexcusable and unexampled injuries had been -perpetrated, and an immense value in property unjustly spoiled, and that -the honor of our country had been insulted, without provocation, were -facts admitted by all. Those whose property had been the sport of wanton -violation, which, in many instances, had reduced the sufferers from ease -and affluence to want and misery, came forward and demanded redress and -indemnification. That they were entitled to such indemnification, from -the nature of our social compact, he understood to be agreed by every -gentleman. - -[Here Mr. S. was interrupted by several members; and Mr. NICHOLAS and -Mr. SMILIE declared that in their opinion, there was no obligation to -indemnify the sufferers, except it were done out of a fund to be formed -by the sequestration of British property.] - -Mr. S. said he was obliged to the gentlemen for setting him right; till -now he had believed that the right of the sufferers to indemnification -was denied by none. If this, however, was really a question yet to be -decided, it was due to the sufferers, it was due to our own honor, to -decide it without delay. It was asked, by what means is the Government -to administer redress? They were first to apply to the Governments which -had inflicted the injuries, to state their nature and extent, and to -demand, in unequivocal terms, redress. This business, notwithstanding -all the opposition which had been made, was happily in a proper train. -He hoped and believed that the application would be effectual. It might, -however, fail; and in that case, he was free to declare that we owed it -to our honor and to our injured citizens, to attempt redress by means of -the last resort. In that unhappy event, the interests of the sufferers -must be involved with the general interests of the nation, and must -abide the ultimate result of war. But if satisfaction should not be -obtained by negotiation, and should the Government, from any political -considerations, not seek redress by force, in such events the sufferers -would have a just claim on their country for indemnification. The -question now immediately before the House was, to refer the motion for -indemnification to the Committee of the Whole on the subject of -sequestration. This was not fair, as it respected that part of the House -who approved an engagement to indemnify, and who would never consent to -sequestration. It was not fair as respected the sufferers, because he -believed there was not a gentleman in the House who supposed that the -measure of sequestration would prevail. He was astonished that any -should believe that it ought to be adopted. He, himself, without -hesitation, approved of engaging to indemnify the sufferers; but at the -same time, with all his heart, he abhorred sequestration and -confiscation of debts, as the measures which all civilized nations had -for more than a century abandoned as immoral and unjust. He would not -now enter into a discussion of the question of sequestration. Whenever -it came directly under consideration, he pledged himself to undertake to -prove that it was against the law of nations, that it was immoral, -unjust, and impolitic. He had been sorry to perceive that the feelings -of the mover of that proposition (Mr. DAYTON) were wounded, by the terms -in which gentlemen had spoken of his motion. He himself, in his -conscience, believed it to be immoral and unjust; and, as such, he felt -himself bound as a man of honor to give it his strenuous opposition. The -gentleman surely could not reasonably expect that independent men would -sacrifice opinion to politeness or to friendship. All he could do, and -that he did with pleasure, was to declare that he believed the -gentleman's motives were pure and upright, and that he had a perfect -confidence in the correctness of his moral sentiments. Viewing the -subject in the light he had expressed, he appealed to the candor and -fairness of gentlemen, to what tended the combining of those irritative -questions of indemnification and sequestration, but to wound the -feelings and evade the just application of the sufferers? Gentlemen had -charged his colleague, and those who had supported his motion, with -attempting, by these means, meanly to court popularity. To refute this -charge would, in his opinion, be unnecessary, because no well-informed -man in America could believe it. He did not know that the opinions which -were held by his friends and himself on this subject, were popular; it -was sufficient that they were believed to be just. Was he, however, -disposed to recriminate, by disclosing motives which were not avowed, -but concealed, he could tell a tale, which, he believed, could be heard -with effect. - -Mr. GOODHUE spoke a few words, in direct opposition to what had been -advanced by Mr. DAYTON. The two propositions ought to be discussed -separately. We had sent a negotiator to Britain, and a sequestration -would put an end to his business. The citizens of the United States -ought to be taxed, in the mean time, to pay these losses; and it was -possible that a sequestration might, hereafter, be thought advisable. He -very strongly pressed the idea of a tax to this end. It would be a -proceeding of the most superlative impropriety, to lay on such a -sequestration at this particular juncture, when we had just agreed to -take off the Embargo, because our ships would go to England, and be all -seized, by way of reprisal. - -Mr. CLARK recommended that both propositions should be laid aside for -the present, and be suffered to take a sweet nap together, till a more -convenient time. He spoke with much contempt of the notion of taxing the -people of this country to pay for the ravages of Britain. The Court of -London would say to the world: "You see that we acted right: you see -the United States think so likewise; for they themselves pay their -merchants." - -Mr. GILES agreed with Mr. CLARK: but as there is a necessary sameness in -the arguments on this question, and as they have already been detailed -in so many different forms, it seems needless to repeat them over again -so frequently. He said that when this tax came to be levied, every -farmer would say, every man in America would say, "We shall have nothing -to do with this business. Why don't you indemnify British depredations -out of the British property that is within your grasp?" He had heard -that Congress ought to decide an abstract proposition, viz: that this -Government was, in any event, bound to pay the recent losses of its -merchants by sea; and then proceed to assign funds for the payment. He -thought that before Congress undertook any such engagement, they ought -at least to be possessed of the money requisite to discharge it. He -hoped that the House would never proceed to a vote in support of any -abstract axiom, especially where taxes and public money were concerned, -till they had carefully digested the collateral circumstances. - -Mr. DEXTER spoke against the amendment. He said, that very strong -reasons existed both for taking into consideration a proposition for -indemnity to the sufferers, and also against connecting it with -sequestration or any other subject. Each ought to stand or fall on its -own merits. The sufferers were numerous, and deserving citizens; they -had waited a long time, and had a right to know, before the close of the -session, what protection they were to expect from the Government of -their own country. Sequestration, without a change of political -circumstances, would never pass both Houses of the Legislature; to -connect them, then, would be to deny relief, without even examining the -principles on which they claim it. He said, British debts had been -called the only proper and natural funds: in his opinion, they would be -no fund at all, even if sequestration could be adopted. The debts would -never be collected; and not only so, but sequestration would be the -beginning of hostilities, and war must ensue; this, at the same moment, -would prevent all hope of obtaining justice from Britain, and also -discharge our own Government from every obligation to indemnify. Mr. D. -said he would state what, in his opinion, was the proper and natural -fund--the money to be demanded of Britain by our Envoy Extraordinary. -Should this fail, the Government of America would either pay the -sufferers, or grant them letters of marque and reprisal. This, he said, -is the constant course of nations, and this the sufferers have a right -to demand, as a counterpart of their allegiance. Mr. D. said, it had -been objected that the British Government would be encouraged by it to -refuse a recompense. This, if true, would be a serious objection, for he -had always viewed negotiation as affording the only probable chance for -indemnity to the sufferers. If a recompense be refused by Britain, war -will be the consequence. The objection, however, he thought, would be -entirely removed, by attending to the resolution itself. It is not, he -said, a provision for taking the debt on ourselves, but merely to -_guarantee_ a recompense to the sufferers. The very word itself implies -that the Government of America is not the principal debtor, but is to -compel another to make indemnity, or become the debtor. Mr. D. closed -with saying that he had attended only to the reasoning of the gentlemen, -and not to their personalities. It was not his practice to leave the -question, to impute to others motives either corrupt or paltry: if they -chose to glean imaginary laurels on this ground, he was not anxious to -share them; they could best judge whether, in this way, they were likely -to increase their reputation or benefit the public. - -Messrs. AMES, MURRAY, SMITH, (of South Carolina,) and HILLHOUSE, also -spoke against the amendment, and said the merits of neither proposition -were now before the House, but only the mode in which the subject should -be considered; that they were in themselves separate and independent, -and ought to have a separate and independent consideration; they were -questions of very great national concern, and that blending them -together would give an undue bias, and neither would be fairly and -impartially decided. It was doubtful whether the resolution for -sequestration ever ought to be adopted, and that to connect the two -subjects, would be to hang a millstone about the necks of the sufferers; -that, as they were a numerous and very meritorious class of citizens, -their claim merited a candid and full examination, unembarrassed with -any other matter. - -A warm dispute arose about the form in which the question on this -resolution should be taken. The point actually contested seemed to be, -whether the resolution was to be referred to the committee on Mr. -DAYTON'S motion for the sequestration of British property, or to a -separate committee, which was insisted on by the mover, Mr. GOODHUE. - -A division took place upon the question of agreeing to Mr. DAYTON's -amendment, to add, after the words "be referred to a Committee of the -Whole," the following words, viz: "to whom were referred the resolutions -for sequestering the British debts;" and the yeas and nays being called -for, were taken--yeas 57, nays 31, as follows: - - YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, John Beatty, - Thomas Blount, Elias Boudinot, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel - Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Abraham Clark, Isaac Coles, - William J. Dawson, Jonathan Dayton, Henry Dearborn, George - Dent, William Findlay, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, - Alexander Gillon, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Samuel - Griffin, William B. Grove, George Hancock, John Heath, - Daniel Heister, William Hindman, John Hunter, Matthew - Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, - Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, - Andrew Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony - New, John Nicholas, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, John - Page, Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston, - Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John S. Sherburne, John - Smilie, Israel Smith, Silas Talbot, Philip Van Cortlandt, - Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Benjamin Williams, Richard - Winn, and Joseph Winston. - - NAYS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, Benjamin Bourne, David - Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Samuel Dexter, Thomas - Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas - Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, James - Hillhouse, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, - Francis Malbone, William Vans Murray, Theodore Sedgwick, - Jeremiah Smith, William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, George - Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van - Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Watts. - -And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the -said motion for commitment, as amended, it was resolved in the -affirmative. - - -FRIDAY, May 16. - -_Revenue Bill: Salt and Coal Tax._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -bill laying additional duties on goods, wares, and merchandise imported -into the United States, and on the tonnage of ships or vessels. - -The three cents per bushel of additional duty on salt was objected to by -Mr. FINDLAY, as oppressive to his constituents. - -Mr. AMES was convinced, that this was much better than a land-tax. It -was beyond all comparison, more cheap, more certain, and more equal in -the collection than a land-tax. He would rather tax salt, at even half a -dollar per bushel, than agree to a land-tax. - -Mr. CLARK would be very glad to hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania -(Mr. FINDLAY) specify, upon what subject he was willing to pay a tax? It -was beyond the comprehension of Mr. C., for what sort of a tax the -gentleman was prepared to vote, or, indeed, what sort of taxes the -Western settlers of Pennsylvania pay. We lay a duty on sugar. They make -sugar for themselves. We lay a tax on tobacco. They are to manufacture -for themselves. We lay an excise on distilleries. They refuse to pay -this tax, and, in fact, they do not pay it. We tax wines; but we are -told that these people are poor. They cannot, therefore, afford to drink -wine, on which the duty is very heavy, for that duty is paid only by the -rich. We tax the importation of foreign fineries, such as silk, but silk -also is not the dress of poor people, so that here again the -constituents of the gentleman get off. We are going to tax the -importation of foreign coals, but they have plenty of their own, and so -far from paying a tax on them, are cutting a canal to bring them down to -Philadelphia; which will drive out the importation of foreign coals, and -so destroy the tax altogether. Under these circumstances, Mr. C. was -solicitous to learn what taxes the back settlers paid, for, as far as -he could understand, they paid none; and their Representative would do -well to inform the House on what they were willing to pay a tax. Was -Government to be burdened with them, and derive no compensation? Was it -a sufficient reason for exempting a district from public burdens to say -that the people are poor? Are taxes to be paid exclusively by the rich? - -Mr. RUTHERFORD objected to this duty on salt. It was often to be carried -from one to three hundred and fifty miles inland, and in fact, it -frequently costs twenty shillings per bushel. No tax could be so -universally unpopular as this would be. - -Mr. FINDLAY replied to Mr. CLARK. As to sugar, though some of his -neighbors made theirs, Mr. F. bought his own in Philadelphia. As to -silks and other female fineries, his constituents did just like other -people. They spent, in that way, as much as they could possibly afford, -and had among them ladies very well dressed. As to other matters, his -constituents purchased their manufactures in Philadelphia, and paid for -them as other people did. Salt, he said, was known to be necessary for -cattle in the back country. He was strongly against the tax. - -Mr. GILLON likewise opposed the tax on salt. It had been proposed, in -the State which he represented, but never could be carried through. - -On a division, it was rejected--ayes 32, noes 47. - -A motion was made for striking out twenty-five cents per ton of -additional tonnage, on foreign vessels, in order to insert fifty. - -It was passed in the negative--ayes 39, noes 41. - -After going through the bill, the committee rose, and the House went -into consideration of the amendments made in Committee of the Whole. - -On the subject of an additional duty on coal imported, Mr. GILES said, -that the rise was very moderate, from four and a half to six cents per -ton. A Boston company was about, as he understood, to embark in this -business, but waited to see the steps taken by Congress. There was as -much coal in Virginia as would serve all America and Europe besides. - -Mr. WADSWORTH would have the additional duty restricted to all coal -imported in foreign vessels. - -Mr. HEISTER wanted to know, whether the price of coal had not been -already doubled within these few years. He was informed that coal -imported had of late risen from six dollars per ton, to twelve dollars -and a half. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS said, that a few years would put an end to importation -altogether. He defended the tax. He saw no danger to any of the -manufactures in America, that make use of foreign coal arising from this -tax. Nothing but a capital was wanting to make America supply herself. - -Mr. SHERBURNE recommended the amendment of Mr. WADSWORTH, as to the -restriction of this duty to foreign bottoms. - -Mr. MADISON worded this amendment, "on all vessels not belonging to -citizens of the United States;" because foreign bottoms might belong to -people of this country. He was not solicitous about the fate of the -motion. The amendment was lost; but the original motion was carried. - - -SATURDAY, May 17. - -_Tobacco and Sugar Duties._ - -The bill laying a duty on tobacco manufactured, and sugar refined, in -the United States, was read a second time. - -Mr. LYMAN opposed its passing to a third reading, on the ground that -those articles deserve yet the fostering care of Government, and are -entirely incapable of bearing such a burden; for, even now, -notwithstanding the present protecting duties, they, especially the -article of manufactured snuff, are yet imported. He also objected to the -bill from the exceptionable nature of an excise. - -Some objections were made to the propriety of opposing the bill in its -present stage. - -Mr. CLARK thought the bill unnecessary, because the two and a half per -cent. of additional impost would supply all the wants of the public. He -thought that the bill had an _immoral_ tendency, because it tempted men -to perjure themselves. It was oppressive, as making every man's house -liable to be searched at midnight. He thought it also would produce an -expensive mode of collection. He, therefore, objected against it, as -unnecessary, of an immoral tendency, as oppressive, and expensive. He -had always voted against it, and he always should persist in voting -against it. - -Mr. AMES pressed the necessity for money, and the want of other funds to -discharge the services of the current year. He said, that to impose -taxes was an unpopular office, and exposed members to dislike. Perhaps -they might be _persecuted_; but it was still requisite for members to -perform their duty. He had a great repugnance to the excise as -established in Europe; but in America it was of a different nature. To -reject the present bill would place the finances of this country in a -very alarming point of view. If this bill was thrown out, we might bid -farewell to firm and determined measures. We must go home when we are to -lay a tax, and ask the people whether or not they like it. - -Mr. NICHOLAS went into the old arguments against excise. He was severe -on the general character of excise officers, whom he represented as the -dregs of society. Very few persons in America would accept of such an -office at all, and those who accepted of it, were by no means of a -respectable rank in life. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS.--There are as good men employed in the collection of the -revenue as any others in the country, not excepting the gentleman -himself; and men who are as well liked by their neighbors. - -Mr. W. SMITH.--The rejection of the bill at this time will not decide -the principle of excise; if rejected, it will not be owing to the -arguments against it, but to the absence of a great many members, who -never dreamed that the question would have been brought on to-day, and -who do not even know that the bill has been so much as reported. The -practice is uncandid, and unprecedented, to endeavor to reject a bill at -this stage, before it has been printed, and the members know its -contents. Was it fair and consistent, in a thin House, to reject the -bill without any further consideration than one reading, for the sake of -form, a reading, to which _nobody had listened_? How was this to settle -the principle of excise? Was it not already settled in the constitution -and by existing laws? But a new argument had been this day resorted to; -there was a surplus of revenue in the Treasury, without new taxes, and -this had been discovered since this tax had been agreed to. If this -argument was founded in fact, it would put an end to all debates on all -the new taxes; but what was this notable discovery? an additional two -and a half per cent. on impost. This was no discovery which could change -the question, for it was agreed to before the duty on manufactured -tobacco and sugar; and the latter had been therefore established by the -House, with a knowledge that the former was laid. He asked if, in the -present situation of the country, all dependence was to be placed on -commerce? How could certain members reconcile this proceeding with their -former votes and language? But the other day we were to prohibit all -commercial intercourse, to sequester debts, and to prepare for war. Now, -we are to derive the whole of the revenues from trade; the same -gentlemen who urged these measures were now defeating every kind of -revenue which might be productive. There was something so extraordinary -in this, that he could not account for it. It was said, that the -Committee of Ways and Means ought not to have reckoned on a defalcation, -in the impost of $1,300,000, but the gentlemen assign no reasons for -their assertion, whereas the committee founded their report on the best -information. Admit, however, that it is doubtful; was it safe, in the -present critical state of the country, to place all dependence on -_external_ resources, which were every moment in danger of being cut -off? Did not duty require a provision for the defence and safety of the -United States by _internal_ resources? This was certain, that the extra -appropriations of this year exceeded those of any former year by two -millions and a half of dollars. Where was the money to come from? The -members in opposition to this tax, voted out land and salt; they -endeavored to vote out stamps and carriages. They will agree to nothing -but impost. Are the merchants to be saddled with the whole burden, -because, like friends to order and tranquillity, they have not called -_town-meetings, or published inflammatory resolves_? It is said, war is -no longer expected; this country is willing to submit to every thing. -Was this insinuation pointed at Congress or the Executive? It was -unfounded in either case; because negotiation was tried, it did not -follow that either the one or the other branch of the Government were -disposed tamely to submit to injury; for himself, he was ready to aver -that, if proper reparation were not obtained, he should be for war. The -balance now being trembling on its beam, and no one could say whether it -would settle for peace or war, he was for preparing seriously for the -latter, while he strove to preserve the former. Pecuniary exertions were -indispensable; it might be a pleasant thing to oppose taxes, and the -advocates of new taxes might be obnoxious, but this would not draw him -from his duty. The increase of excise officers had been mentioned; the -bill did not propose a single one; the bad character of the excise -officers had been mentioned; the supervisors were among the most -respectable men in the United States, and the inspectors were as -virtuous as the officers of the customs. The embarrassments, the taking -of oaths, &c., were not more applicable to manufacturers than to -merchants and captains, who could not enter, or unlade, or clear out, -without difficulties, embarrassments, and oaths; but this was -disregarded, as if they had less feeling than other people. As to the -injury to morals, the necessary oaths required by all revenue laws were -not injurious to the morals of the honest, and those who swore to the -truth; and, as to those who were disposed to commit frauds and -perjuries, no injury could be done to the morals of those who had none. -Mr. S. wished that less had been said in the way of general reflection -on the collectors of the revenue. Some years ago, a member of that -House, when they were at New York, attacked the tide-waiters. There -happened to be a tide-waiter in the gallery, who wrote, next day, a -pretty smart letter to the member who had spoken so freely of his -profession. - -Mr. NILES hoped that no gentleman would say, that he wished to see the -Treasury empty. He would, for his own part, be glad to know whether -there was a deficiency or not, clearly stated. He did not see so much as -some others did, in the objections to an excise. It was _called_ an -excise, it was true, but we do not know yet the way in which it is to be -levied; so, we cannot tell whether there will be any hardship in it or -not. He went over some of the statements of different gentlemen, but on -the whole, there was so much contradiction in the assertions of -different members, that Mr. N. knew not what to make of them. - -Mr. BOUDINOT moved that the House adjourn, which they did immediately, -at three o'clock. - - -MONDAY, May 19. - -_Impressment of American Seamen._ - -Mr. MURRAY moved, that a committee be appointed to report a bill to -provide such regulations as may enable American seamen to obtain and -carry evidence of citizenship, for the purpose of protecting them from -impressment into foreign service. He said, that it was a reasonable -expectation that the subject of this resolution should be seriously -attended to, at any time; but there were the most urgent reasons for an -attention to the situation of our fellow-citizens of this description at -the present period. That the evil of impressment into foreign service -existed, no gentleman could doubt, and it was equally doubtless, that it -was the duty of Congress, as far as they could, to provide a remedy for -the evil. A few years since, when Britain armed her navy against Spain, -on the Nootka-Sound question, it had been the fate of several hundreds -of the American seamen to be impressed into a service which they -abhorred. For a proof of this fact, he would recall the remembrance of -the House to the claim made by Mr. Cutting for repayment of money -actually expended by him, in the liberation of seamen in this -humiliating situation. Congress repaid Mr. Cutting two thousand dollars. -That they had thus attended to this claim was proof that the fact -complained of existed. The evil arose, not more from the extreme -insolence of disposition of the pressgangs, than from a real difficulty -of discriminating American citizens from British subjects. The -difficulty was in similarity of language, dress, and manners; and from -the deficiency of evidence of citizenship, which, in a foreign port, -could not always be obtained. For, though the Lords of the Admiralty of -England had laid down certain rules, in the case that he had mentioned, -the rules laid down had exacted so rigid and pointed an oath, from -personal knowledge, that they scarcely could, in any case, be complied -with. A captain might, in many instances, _believe_ his sailor to be an -American, and yet not think himself warranted in making oath to this -fact. The object of his resolution was, that seamen, who are American -citizens, might all pursue a uniform line of evidence in proof of -citizenship, and that, by an entry of such evidence solemnly obtained in -the clearances or other authentic papers of the ship, the same weight -and authority should be given to their part of a ship's papers as were, -in all cases, given to all sea letters and other papers. He believed -that, if the subject went to a select committee, a particular regulation -on this subject might be digested, which would, in many cases, if not in -all, afford such good evidence of citizenship, as would save American -seamen from the injustice and cruelty that many, he believed, now -actually suffered under; for he had heard that a number of them had been -impressed in the West Indies on board of the British fleet. He was not -so sanguine as to imagine, that any law could give full protection to -our seamen; for he was convinced that, in order to give complete -protection, certain rules of evidence must first be recognized, by -convention between this country and Britain, stipulating the extent of -certain political principles relative to alienage and allegiance. Till, -however, that is done, he thought it the duty of Congress, and -particularly at this disturbed period, to afford every aid in its power -to this class of citizens. To bring the subject before the House, he had -moved the resolution, which he gave notice that he would call up -to-morrow. - -_Tobacco and Sugar Duties._ - -The House then resumed the consideration of the bill for laying a duty -on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, which had been debated and -postponed on Saturday. - -Mr. GOODHUE wished for a delay. He had seen a gentleman from -Pennsylvania, last night, whom he did not now see in his place in the -House, and who was making out an estimate, whether the money proposed to -be raised by these taxes would be wanted or not. If they could really do -without the money, it would be better to reject the bill. - -Mr. SHERBURNE thought that the question might be delayed, till it was -seen whether the sums to be produced by this bill, would be actually -required or not. - -Mr. DAYTON believed that the money was wanted. He would therefore vote -for the bill. It was incumbent on gentlemen who objected to the bill, to -show that the money would not be wanted. - -Mr. SMILIE and Mr. LEE rose at the same time. - -The SPEAKER observed, that Mr. SMILIE had risen first. - -Mr. LEE said, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania had already spoken -twice on this subject and he _insisted for order_. [Mr. L. referred to -the proceedings of Saturday, for Mr. SMILIE had not spoke any before, -this day.] Our time, said Mr. L., is too precious to be wasted in -talking, when every gentleman is competent to give his vote already. I -call for the question. His opinion was, that the money was not yet -wanted; and that it was being too provident to vote for taxes, before -they were required by necessity. - -Mr. W. SMITH contended, that there would be a very considerable -deficiency. He asked, who would lend us money, if there was such a -difficulty in establishing funds to pay the interest of it? - -Mr. WADSWORTH hoped that the bill would not be altogether thrown aside. -There was part of it that he approved, and part of it that he did not -perfectly approve. In discussing this question, much stress has been -laid upon the two and a half per cent. of additional impost on -importations, as if _that_ would be a fund for the increase of revenue, -and supersede the necessity for some other taxes. Mr. W. assigned his -reasons for believing that this supposition was perfectly chimerical. -Within the last six months, American vessels and property had been -captured by the British privateers in the West Indies, to the extent of -_one million of dollars_. This will make the importations less, by at -least five hundred thousand dollars, and, of consequence, destroy a -great part both of the old and new impost. Property to the extent of -one-fourth of a million of dollars, perhaps, had likewise been seized by -the Spaniards, and other nations had most likely taken as much more. The -total loss to American commerce could not, therefore, be less than -_fifteen hundred thousand dollars_. The imposts on importations must, -therefore, be very much reduced; as from Britain, for example, there -would not, in his judgment, be one-fourth part of the imports, from this -time to the first of December, that had been formerly. And no man could -imagine that, at the most, they would exceed one-half of their former -amount. The British merchants would be afraid, on account of the matters -that had been proposed. These people, they would say, have been laying -embargoes, and speaking of sequestration, and indemnification. We must -be cautious. Mr. W. added, that it was possible enough, that America -might, in the fall, be at war with Britain; and then impost and -importation will fall together. These were his motives for believing -that the two and a half per cent. would be of no great consequence. It -had been said, that the ten per cent. would produce a large -augmentation. He did not, from the diminished quantity of imports, -believe that it would be _so much_, by twenty or thirty per cent. as the -old seven and half duty had produced. Mr. W. next reverted to the bill -before the House. One part of it (the duty on snuff) he could not agree -to. The other part, refined sugars, would fall on those who could afford -to pay it, and after all that had been said against this bill, he was -firmly convinced, that, so far from injuring the manufacture, it would -thrive the better for this tax. He, on this account, hoped that the bill -would pass, in spite of his objection to some things that might, -perhaps, be corrected. He then replied to the complaints of some -gentlemen, who, as an excuse for repeating over and over again their -former arguments and opinions, observed, that they had not received an -answer. It was very likely that they might think so, and he, for his -part, did not think that he had been _answered_. This kind of reasoning -had no end. Perhaps it was impossible for him, or gentlemen of his -sentiments, to answer the opposite side of the question. And, again, -perhaps the gentlemen of the opposite opinion could not answer them. The -matter must rest there, and the question come to a vote. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS was convinced that there was a deficiency, and a great -one. But he was not fully prepared to speak upon the subject; though he -was sure of the fact. He did not wish to hurry the subject. The bill -might be printed. - -Mr. NICHOLAS was sorry to have learned that he had, on Saturday, made a -general reflection on a profession of men. With some gentlemen, in the -line referred to, he had as strict a friendship as with any persons on -earth. He said, that ten lines of figures, which he had in his hand, -would satisfy the House, that the taxes in the present bill are not -wanted. He then began a detail of considerable length, to which Mr. -FITZSIMONS replied. - -Mr. TRACY.--One gentleman says that we have a surplus of three millions; -another, that we have a surplus of one million. It is very strange for -gentlemen to be coming forward in this stage of the debate, and to say -that money is not wanted, after the want of money has been so frequently -advanced, and admitted, in the House. It is unaccountable, that there -should be a contradiction on a point of this nature. He next went into a -long series of calculations. - -He objected to the estimate of the impost of 1793, that was reckoned -upon for the current expenses of 1794. A great part of this impost was -still due, by bonds. The persons who had given these bonds were, many of -them, broke by the British depredations in the West Indies; and, in -fact, a large proportion of that impost never would be paid in to the -collectors of the revenue. - -He was displeased with the way in which some gentlemen had spoken of the -national debt. He had no share, for his own part, as a creditor; but a -part of his property must go to the discharge of it, and he should -cheerfully pay it. He did not agree with those gentlemen who, in the -event of a peace, would not wish to replenish the Treasury. It was -curious, that the House had now been assembled for nearly six months; -and that their chief object had been to discover ways and means for -raising public money. A bill for that purpose had been brought in; and -just when it was on the point of being passed, we make a sudden and -wonderful discovery, that no money is wanted; but that we have an -overplus of three millions of dollars. The thing cannot be. The -calculations are not founded on truth. He did not believe that members -understood the bill. He could demonstrate that there was occasion for a -supply of money. - -Mr. MADISON thought that the arguments on each side of this question -might be reduced to a narrow compass. If peace continues, he supposed it -likely that the revenue would not fall so far short, as the committee -had apprehended. But if there was a war, the expense would much exceed -any thing yet thought of. He was for laying aside the subject at -present, and if a rupture with England should ensue, he would then -recommend, at once, a _direct_ tax, and that these excise acts should be -entirely thrown aside. If there was no war, he believed that no new -taxes were required; let the matter therefore die, as to the present. He -disapproved the principle of the tax, and should, on that account, think -himself justified in voting against it. - -Mr. GILLON rose, and replied to several gentlemen, who were for the -excise on tobacco, snuff, and loaf and lump sugar; and observed, that he -had partly obtained his object, by drawing gentlemen forward, with the -calculations which had been kept back. But as the gentlemen, after -having, by their own account, been three months on this subject, avowed -that his request of detailing those large sums came rather unexpected, -and that they wished to have more time to make their calculations, he -had not much objection to let this bill have a second reading; but he -hoped they would be accurate, in proportion to the time taken to preface -them. As to the idea of our general taxes not taking place until the -first of next March, that had no weight with him; because he knew the -Civil List for the year was not all then due, nor would all the sum for -military and naval preparations be to be paid down, the day the ore was -dug for the guns, nor on the day that the first tree was cut to begin -the frigates. - -He agreed that a deficiency might arise on the supplies now due, for the -terms which the gentlemen had assigned by the plunder of our merchants' -property. He was happy to find that gentlemen had not lost sight of the -serious applications they had received from that respectable and utile -body (the merchants) for redress; and he should take care to remind -gentlemen of their own observations, when the requests of the merchants -were brought forward, as he was clear something must be done, either by -restitution on the debts to be sequestered, a loan for them under the -guarantee of the Union, or by prolonging the time to a remote period, of -paying the duties that they owed. He was accused of making _wonderful -discoveries_, of making calculations not founded in truth. The latter he -denied, for, if there is any untruth in them, it cannot be on his side, -but must have arisen from the committee; therefore, to them be the -untruth applicable, as he did not make use of a figure but what they -placed in their report. - -He still retained his opinion, that surplus revenue was dangerous in the -hands of any Government. What did they want to do with it? He hoped -nothing else but to buy up the national funded debt as cheap as they -could, which act was pardonable, only by the intent, he presumed, they -must feel of at last doing justice to our late armies. His meaning was, -that the profits arising from this speculation should be kept as a -sacred deposit out at interest, and that interest to be employed towards -paying off the interest due on the principal losses which our brave -officers and soldiers had met with, by being obliged to part with their -shares of pay at a very inferior value. This you may better pay to -patriotism and misfortune than pay to speculators. - -Mr. TRACY.--If I have said what is alleged, the language is too -indecorous to be used by me to any gentleman on this floor. If any thing -of that kind has escaped from me, I am ready to ask the gentleman's -pardon. I have the highest respect for his character. - -And the question was then put, Shall this bill be rejected? It passed in -the negative--yeas 31, nays 56, as follows: - - YEAS.--Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, - Thomas Claiborne, Abraham Clark, Isaac Coles, William - Findlay, William B. Giles, Alexander Gillon, Andrew Gregg, - Daniel Heister, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, James - Madison, Joseph McDowell, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, - Peter Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John - Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston, Robert - Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John Smilie, Thomas Tredwell, - Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Richard Winn, and Joseph - Winston. - - NAYS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey, - Abraham Baldwin, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, Benjamin - Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, - Joshua Coit, William J. Dawson, Jonathan Dayton, Henry - Dearborn, George Dent, Samuel Dexter, Thomas Fitzsimons, - Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, James Gillespie, Nicholas - Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Samuel - Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, James - Hillhouse, William Hindman, John Hunter, Henry Latimer, - Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Matthew Locke, Francis - Malbone, Alexander Mebane, William Vans Murray, Alexander - D. Orr, Andrew Pickens, Theodore Sedgwick, John S. - Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, - Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George Thatcher, Uriah - Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van - Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas - Ward, John Watts, and Benjamin Williams. - -The said bill was then read the second time, and ordered to be committed -to a Committee of the whole House on Wednesday next. - -_Augmentation of the Army._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -bill to augment the military force of the United States; and after some -time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee had had the -said bill under consideration, and made amendment thereto; which was -read, as follows: - -Strike out the first section of the bill, in the words following, to -wit: - - "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives - of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, - That there shall be raised, for the term of ---- years, or - during a war which may break out between the United States - and any European Power, an additional military force, - consisting of twenty-five thousand non-commissioned - officers, privates, and musicians, together with a proper - proportion of commissioned officers of all grades, - respectively, according to the present Military - Establishment of the United States:" - -And on the question that the House do agree with the Committee of the -whole House in the said amendment, it was resolved in the affirmative. - -A motion was then made and seconded to amend the said bill, by -inserting, in lieu of the section stricken out, the following section, -to wit: - - "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives - of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, - That there shall be raised, upon the terms and conditions - hereafter mentioned, an additional provisional military - force, to consist of ---- non-commissioned officers, - privates, and musicians, together with a proper proportion - of commissioned officers." - -It passed in the negative--yeas 30, nays 50, as follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, John Beatty, Benjamin Bourne, David - Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Jonathan Dayton, George Dent, Samuel - Dexter, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, - Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, James Hillhouse, William - Hindman, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Francis Malbone, - William Vans Murray, Theodore Sedgwick, William Smith, - Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George Thatcher, Uriah - Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van - Gaasbeck, Jeremiah Wadsworth, and John Watts. - - NAYS.--James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, - Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas - Claiborne, Abraham Clark, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, William - J. Dawson, Henry Dearborn, William Findlay, William B. - Giles, James Gillespie, Alexander Gillon, Nicholas Gilman, - Henry Glenn, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, William - Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, John Hunter, Matthew Locke, - William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Joseph - McDowell, Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew - Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John - Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston, - Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John S. Sherburne, John - Smilie, Israel Smith, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van - Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Richard Winn, - Benjamin Williams, and Joseph Winston. - -And then the question being put that the said bill, as amended, be -engrossed and read the third time, it passed in the negative. And so the -said bill was rejected. - - -FRIDAY, May 23. - -_Tobacco and Sugar Duties._ - -The House went into a committee, Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair, on the bill -for an excise on tobacco, snuff, and refined sugar. - -In the first section, it was agreed to strike out the words, "tobacco -and." This proposed that the word tobacco be struck out in every -subsequent part of the bill, so that the duty be confined to the -manufacture of snuff. - -Mr. MUHLENBERG (The SPEAKER) moved to strikeout the second section, -"that from and after the ---- day of ---- there be levied, collected, -and paid, upon all sugar which shall be refined within the United -States, a duty of two cents per pound." - -He would not trouble the committee with any comments on the excise, -enough having already been said on that subject; although he could not -forbear mentioning, that in England, where almost every thing was -subject to an excise, and where the Minister is ever on the watch to -discover new articles for that purpose, loaf sugar had never yet been -taxed, the Committee on Ways and Means had all the credit of the -seasonable discovery. The reason for not attempting an excise on this -article was obvious, because the manufacture employed a greater quantity -of shipping than any other, they therefore rather wished to encourage -than to depress it; the former of which they effectually do, by allowing -a generous drawback on exportation of refined sugar, for which the -different ports of the Continent afford them a constant and ready -market. The case was widely different here. The manufacture is yet in -its infant state--it has to contend with the old established ones in -Europe, who have larger capitals and can afford longer credits, whereas -we have not only no market to export it to, but even now already, can -annually make a quantity more than sufficient for the consumption of the -United States. It is true, it appears from the last returns, that -upwards of 200,000 lbs. of refined sugars were imported last year, which -is about the same quantity which two houses might furnish in one year, -but it is to be observed, that owing to the high price of raw sugars, -some establishments were not worked at all, whilst others did not work -above eight or nine months in the year, and I will here, said Mr. M., -venture to assert, that if this duty of two cents actually takes place, -some of those who are now engaged in this difficult and expensive -business will abandon it and turn their capitals into other channels. I -do not stand alone in this opinion; others, of more experience, join me, -and it is founded on the following incontrovertible facts. Raw sugars -have for several years past been so high, that refined sugars naturally -bore an equally high price. This has already lessened the consumption, -to a considerable degree, in the United States, and from the present -prospect before us, when the French islands are in the hands of the -British, the probability is, that they will rather be higher than lower; -and if the two cents be added to the present high price of refined -sugars, the consumption will still be lessened in the same proportion as -the price of the article increases. This observation is founded on -facts, which every person concerned in the business has felt, and daily -experiences; nay, it can be proved, however strange it may appear, that -a less quantity of refined sugar is consumed at present in the United -States, than a year or two before the Revolution. Again, owing to the -high price of refined sugars, and which must be still higher when this -duty takes place, many even of our opulent families have, in a great -degree, abandoned the use of it, and substituted the white Havana, or -the white East India sugar. I well remember a remarkable instance of -this kind which took place not many months ago in this city. A gentleman -having imported a considerable quantity of white East India sugar, sold -it to the refiners of this place. Before the sale was concluded, he -reserved a quantity for himself and an opulent friend of his. The -consequence was that neither himself nor his friend used half the -quantity of refined sugar they had used the year before. - -Permit me to add another circumstance. Sugars are higher at present, and -from a variety of circumstances must continue to be higher here than in -England, and although an additional duty on imported loaf and lump sugar -may take place, unless it exceeds what I have yet heard mentioned, they -will be able to undersell the manufacturers here, and this from the -single circumstance of their being allowed a drawback of 26_s._ sterling -per cwt., for if even a drawback of the same sum was allowed us here, -which is not to be expected, it cannot operate, because we have no -market for this article. In the West Indies, it is well known to be -contraband, and to transport it to Europe, would be carrying water into -the ocean, and even then it could not be accomplished on as low terms as -the Europeans can afford to do it. - -One fact more, equally incontrovertible, suffer me to add. By the -additional duty on coal, which I am far from disapproving, because I -wish to encourage the consumption of our home productions, you have, in -fact, laid an additional tax on sugar. Every work of this kind consumes -annually from 2,000 to 4,000 bushels. This article was heretofore at the -rate of eleven pence or one shilling per bushel; owing to the duty on -imported coal, it has now risen to 2_s._ to 2_s._ 4_d._ This naturally -enhances the price of the article made in this manufacture, which is -already burdened to a considerable degree with taxes or duties. Thus, -there is a duty on the raw material, a duty on the paper they use, a -duty on the twine, a duty on the coal, and, to crown all, a duty is -intended on the article produced in this devoted manufacture. If it is -thus my friend from Connecticut means to do us good, or if this is the -decided encouragement and protection my colleague means to yield us, it -is such a one as I am sure the manufacturer will not thank him for. - -Sir, I could add that this bill partakes strongly of the nature of a -sumptuary law; that in case of a war it will not produce you any -revenue, because the supplies of the raw material are too irregular, and -no other but imported sugar is refined, which already pays a duty; and -that by this duty you not only lessen the consumption, but also increase -the number of those who cannot pay for it; but I forbear to trespass any -longer on the patience of the committee on this subject. - -But, Mr. Chairman, we want money to build our frigates and arsenals, to -fortify our ports and harbors, and to release our unfortunate brethren -in captivity. We want revenues. If this really be the intention of the -committee, and not merely to establish the principle of excise on home -manufactures, no one will join more cheerfully in such measures as shall -appear most prudent and most likely to obtain the object, and which, in -my opinion, will neither injure the commerce of this country, nor in an -equal degree the manufactures, nor indeed the poorer sort of the -community who consume the article of sugar. - -By the last returns which I could lay my hands on, it appears that there -are annually imported into the United States upwards of twenty-five -millions of pounds of sugar, and from the same returns it appears that -about four or four and a half millions are exported, which are allowed a -drawback of the duty on exportation; thus then there are upwards of -twenty millions of pounds annually consumed in the United States. - -You have, in the late impost bill, imposed an additional duty of one -cent per pound on coffee; half that sum additional duty on raw sugar -will yield you upwards of 100,000 dollars. This then will at once yield -you the sum which the committee expected from an excise both on sugar -and manufactured tobacco, and will neither injure the merchant, nor in -an equal degree the manufacturer, nor indeed the poor; the latter, and -in my opinion none but the idle can be so, as well as many others, have -long since substituted molasses for all the purposes for which they -heretofore used sugar; besides which the American sugar is daily getting -more into use, and bids fair to become general, at least at and near the -frontiers. - -When, therefore, it is considered that this manufacture is yet in its -infancy in the United States; that it has to contend with the old -established ones of Europe; that there is no excise on this article in -England; that this manufacture employs a great quantity of tonnage; that -raw sugars are high here, and comparatively low in Europe; that there is -a drawback in England, which operates as a bounty, and which from local -situations cannot operate, if even granted, with the same advantage -here; when it is reduced to a certainty that the duty will operate -injuriously on the manufactures here; and when it appears that double -the sum can be raised by a trifling additional duty on raw sugar, -without any additional expense or inconvenience, and which will -effectually remove the evils complained of, I flatter myself the motion -will prevail. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS objected to the proposal of the SPEAKER, for a tax of -half a cent per pound on common sugar imported. The unrefined sugar -formed a considerable portion of the subsistence of the poor. Formerly, -the price of it was not more than sixpence, (currency,) but it is now -twelve pence per pound. The coffee duty was another, to which Mr. F. had -felt reluctance, because coffee is an article of universal consumption, -and the tax upon it falls where taxes ought not to fall, that is upon -the poor; but there is no help for it. He would, if possible, have -avoided this tax, for coffee, formerly eleven pence or a shilling per -pound, has risen to one shilling and ten pence. Mr. F. said, that we are -able to lay a heavy enough tax on imported sugar effectually to protect -our own sugar refiners. It had been said that the two cents per pound -duty would make it requisite for the refiners to augment their -capitals. This he could not believe, because the Executive gives credit -to the manufacturers for the payment of the duty. Mr. F. said, that the -time was perhaps not distant, when we shall be obliged to seek sugar in -the East Indies. Britain has acquired the West Indies, which will -increase the difficulties of this country in obtaining it from that part -of the world. - -Mr. MCDOWELL hoped that the section would be struck out. He objected to -the principle of the bill. He considered it as highly impolitic to tax -the infant manufactures of America. He would rather, if the Public -Treasury could afford it, give a premium for the encouragement of our -manufactures, to dissolve the dependence of the United States upon -Europe. This dependence of ours has repeatedly been urged as a reason -why the House ought not to adopt certain commercial regulations and -restrictions. Some gentlemen had undertaken to prove that the -manufacturers would be benefited by such laws, an assertion which he -considered as very extraordinary. The manufacturers themselves -understood their business best, and thought quite otherwise. This tax -will not only alarm those already engaged, but will prevent other men of -enterprise and capital from engaging in manufactures, when they find -that the moment their business becomes profitable, they are to be taxed. - -He could not help remarking upon some observations that fell from his -friend, (Mr. BALDWIN, from Georgia,) when this subject was before the -committee some days ago. It had been objected that the bill was not well -founded, as it established a new principle; and the member (Mr. BALDWIN) -replied, that it was not new, as there was already an excise fixed on -ardent spirits. He had opposed that law, but since it was passed, he -could not object to the present bill. Had the gentleman reflected, he -would have seen that there was equal reason for resisting this bill, -because it fixed that obnoxious principle more strongly, by giving a -further sanction to an American excise. Mr. McD. also considered the tax -to be unnecessary. The tax was contemplated on the prospect of a war -which has now become less likely, the British having, since the Orders -of the 8th of January, relaxed their depredations. Further, the tax was -unnecessary, because, it was asserted by several very well informed -merchants, that the amount of the impost this year would exceed that of -the last. - -On dividing, the motion for striking out the clause was rejected--ayes -31, nays 45. - - -WEDNESDAY, May 28. - -_Advance of Money to France._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the report of the committee to whom was referred the Message of the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the 18th of March last, relative to -an advance of money requested by the Minister of the French Republic. - -Mr. GILES offered the following motion: - - "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be - authorized and requested to apply the proceeds of the loan - of three millions of florins, lately obtained in Holland, - towards the discharge of the debt remaining due to France; - or to the protection and defence of the United States, if, - in his opinion, the same should be found necessary for that - purpose, any appropriation to the contrary - notwithstanding." - -Mr. HILLHOUSE was of opinion that, before any payments in advance should -be made to the French Minister, it was proper to secure the -indemnification of our own citizens, who had sustained such immense -losses by the detention of their vessels in the ports of the Republic, -both in Europe and the West Indies. Mr. H. here made a distinction, that -if the term stipulated for payment of an instalment to France had -actually arrived, he would have made that payment, though they had burnt -our ships, and have sought redress in the ordinary way. But when they -come forward before the money is due, and make such a requisition, he -thought it a fair opportunity to secure the claims of American citizens. - -Mr. NICHOLAS was in favor of the motion. He felt, as an American, that -the cause of this country and of France were inseparably connected; and -that giving the money to the Republic was equivalent to expending it in -the service of the United States. He reminded the House of the indelible -obligations of America to France. That Republic is now reduced to -distress, as this country was when supported by the French arms. Every -principle of humanity, of honor, of gratitude, and of justice, calls -upon us to give that nation the most effectual support in our power. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS.--The Americans have applied to M. Fauchet, for payment -in this country. He has assured them that he cannot give it, but that he -will inform the French Government of their application. They are -satisfied to wait for the reply to the Minister, which is expected from -Europe. - -Mr. AMES remarked, that, as the three millions of florins had been -loaned in Holland for the defence of this country, it would be something -worse than imprudence to give it away for any other purpose. The cause -of France does not depend on her receiving a million of dollars. She is -in a much better situation to give us that sum, than we are to advance -it for her. He did not think that, to keep our money to ourselves, and -to bestow it upon France, were the same thing, nor did he believe that -it would be so considered by the citizens of the United States. He could -not approve the motion. - -Mr. GILLON thought that, as to the claims of American citizens, a -complete answer had been given by the member from Pennsylvania. If the -merchants themselves are willing to wait for an answer from France, -nobody else has any concern with the matter. He rejected the idea of -not paying the money to the French until it was due, unless with a -restriction in favor of the American claimants. The money due to France -had been advanced by her in the time of our utmost distress. It was at -present wanted for her own defence. To indulge us, indeed, she had -formerly granted a longer time than she was obliged to grant for the -repayment. But if necessity compelled her to solicit an abridgment of -that indulgence, is it inconsistent with the feelings of honor and -generosity, to refuse her such a request? - -Mr. WADSWORTH was too ill-informed upon this question, to know upon what -side he ought to vote. Much had been said about the gratitude due from -this country to France. We had been grateful, indeed, since we had -suffered them for a long time past to plunder our vessels without making -a complaint. He stated that the American property seized in the ports of -France amounted to one million of dollars, and that taken by her in the -West India Colonies, to four millions of dollars. Much of this property -had been paid for in such a way, that the owners did not realize more -than twenty-five per cent. of its value. The present application had -been made a long time ago, and Mr. W. did not suppose that the French -Minister could, at present, be in any want of the money. Since the time -when he first sought for it, something had happened which altered the -case. The greatest portion of specie in America is now at the command of -M. Fauchet. There can be, therefore, no pretence for giving away this -million of dollars on the plea of necessity. The Republic herself -possesses, if we are to believe common fame, more cash than all the -kings in Europe; and, though the story may be very greatly exaggerated, -yet make allowance for exaggeration, and still her treasures are very -great. No part of her misfortunes can be ascribed to the want of money. -Matters so standing, he thought that it was our duty to make a halt, and -begin to take some care of the interests of our fellow-citizens. As for -gratitude towards the Republic, he felt as much of that sentiment as -those who talked more about it than he did. But he had not learned any -good reason why this money should be disposed of in this way; and he -could not agree to vote so great a sum where he could not see the need. - -Mr. BOURNE said, that the purposes for which it had been first asked, -had been long since accomplished without it. The transportation of the -emigrants of St. Domingo to France had been given as a reason for this -request, but they were all gone already. - -Mr. SEDGWICK and Mr. GOODHUE also spoke. The resolution was carried in -the committee, and reported to the House, where it was likewise carried; -and it was - -_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said -resolution, and that Mr. MADISON, Mr. BEATTY, and Mr. HEISTER, do -prepare and bring in the same. - - -FRIDAY, May 30. - -_Military Establishment._ - -The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act to increase the Military -Force of the United States, and to encourage the recruiting service," -was read the first time. - -Mr. SMILIE objected that there must be some other purpose for these -troops than any that had been acknowledged; for he could see none. The -principle of the bill was wrong. - -Mr. GILES said, that the bill ought to be named "A bill authorizing the -PRESIDENT _to pass a law_ for raising ten thousand men." In point of -principle, it was infinitely worse than the former one, which the House -had already rejected, (the one supported by Mr. SEDGWICK.) He hoped that -they would not suffer it to go to a second reading. We had made -estimates of the expenses of this year, and have been told that the ways -and means are not sufficient. Yet, in the face of this, to come upon us -all at once with the expense of a standing army of ten thousand men was -too hard. He trusted that gentlemen who would vote for a second reading -would explain the reasons that could induce them to such a measure. The -time spent upon such a bill would be perfectly cast away. He was at a -loss to discover against whom these ten thousand men were to be -employed. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE could not, at this moment, decide whether he ought to vote -for this bill or not. He would recommend a Committee of the Whole to -examine its merits. He should think it ungenerous for any gentleman in -that House to call for his vote till it had been fully discussed. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS.--If we were to debate for a week upon it, I am sure that -there cannot be one new idea started. The whole argument lies in so -narrow a compass that every member may decide on a first hearing. The -question is, whether, on account of the particular state of the country -at this time, it is proper to intrust the PRESIDENT with a discretionary -power of raising an army of ten thousand men? For my own part, I am as -ready to decide just now as I ever can be. - -Mr. AMES.--If we are to go to war, will it not be a prodigious saving of -expense to have all matters ready beforehand? By being prepared two -months before the war breaks out, the advantages in economy would be -immense, as the price of enlisting men would rise fourfold when it was -once known that war was certain. He knew many weak parts in the Union -that might be attacked and in danger before a body of militia could be -ready for effectual service. He was not qualified for details of this -sort; but he knew that Rhode Island, for example, might be taken, and, -in a short time, so strongly fortified, that it would be difficult or -impossible to retake it. Why were we afraid to intrust the PRESIDENT -with the power of raising ten thousand men? Can any body of men to be -raised in this country tread down the substantial yeomanry? This is -quite a Utopian dread. It is infinitely cheaper to raise and embody an -army at leisure, when the storm is seen to be approaching, than all at -once, when twenty things must be done at the same time. There is, -besides, a material distinction between this bill and the former. The -force may be discontinued whenever the Legislature thinks proper; nor is -it to be raised at all unless the PRESIDENT sees or thinks it necessary. -The principle of the bill is, therefore, much less exceptionable than -that of the other. To reject a bill on the first reading is a bad -practice. Mr. A. hoped that the House would guard against it, unless -where any thing was grossly improper, and depended on a single -principle. But he trusted that the House would, in every common case, -set their faces against it. - -Mr. SMILIE controverted every thing said by Mr. AMES. He thought that -the measure would involve this country in a very useless expense. Did we -intend to rival the military establishments in Europe? The British might -be expected to increase their forces in Canada in proportion to those of -the United States. - -Mr. DAYTON followed Mr. SMILIE, and said, that the arguments of the -member who spoke last, although intended to make a different impression, -had convinced him of the impropriety of rejecting this bill upon its -first reading. That gentleman had thought proper to enter into the -intrinsic merits at this stage of it, when those who favored its -principles could have no opportunity of defending or amending the -particular parts of it. He had heard the objects of it grossly -misrepresented. It had been asserted that the bill contemplated the -increase of our military peace establishment to sixteen thousand men. - -[Mr. SMILIE interrupted Mr. DAYTON by declaring that he had never said -or meant any such thing. But the defence of the Western Territory was to -require six thousand men; and these, with the ten thousand to be raised -by this bill, would amount, in the whole, to sixteen thousand men.] - -No such thing (said Mr. D.) was to be found in it, and he called upon -gentlemen to show upon what such an assertion was founded. He, for one, -was of opinion that the interests and safety of the United States might -be materially promoted by our vesting the PRESIDENT with the power to -raise these men, if war should break out in the recess of Congress. Who -did not believe that such an event was not only possible, but in some -degree probable? Who would say that, if war should be forced upon us, -this would not be considered as a most valuable provision, because we -might have this respectable body of troops engaged, equipped, and -prepared to act the moment that hostilities should be declared by the -constituted authority? He would address himself to the feelings and -interests of the member who spoke last, and those similarly -circumstanced. They resided in the interior parts of the country, and -hence it was that they did not seem to experience such lively sensations -at the approach of danger on the eastern frontiers--the sea. What (he -asked) was their situation, and what had they to fear in case of an open -rupture with Great Britain? It was easy to foresee that they would be -vigorously pressed, not only by those Indians which are at present -hostile, and by the regular troops in that quarter, but by all the -neighboring nations of savages over whom British threats or bribes could -have influence. A part of the Six Nations, too, would probably join the -confederacy, and the frontier settlers of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and -New York, would certainly be driven in. With such a corps as the one -proposed, an early check might be given to their irruptions, and the war -be carried to their towns. - -On the other hand, what would be the consequence, if, after the -PRESIDENT perceives a war inevitable, he is not permitted to make the -smallest preparation until he can convene Congress? Two months must be -lost in convening them, owing to the extreme distances of their -residence, all which time would be employed by our enemies in increasing -their forces, in strengthening their posts, and establishing new ones, -and in invading our country. Let this discretionary power be given to -the PRESIDENT, (with whom much greater had repeatedly been lodged, and -had never in any instance been improperly exercised,) and the men might -be engaged while the members were collecting, and a small army in -readiness to act as Congress should by law direct and authorize. No -danger could arise from it, because the enlistments of those who might -be engaged would be void, unless the Legislature, immediately upon their -meeting, should confirm them. It had been said, that our reliance should -be upon the militia. He had, Mr. D. said, as high an opinion of militia -as any member in that House, for he had witnessed their exertions and -importance in the late war; but could it be said that it would be very -convenient or agreeable to them, to be drawn a distance from their own -homes, to be employed in taking and garrisoning posts, if it should be -deemed advisable to direct operations of that kind? He concluded, with -wishing that the bill might be allowed to have a second reading, as -constructions had been imputed to it which it certainly would not bear. - -Mr. MADISON did not accede to the principle of the bill. He did not see -any such immediate prospect of a war, as could induce the House to -violate the constitution. He thought that it was a wise principle in the -constitution, to make one branch of Government raise an army, and -another conduct it. If the Legislature had the power to conduct an army, -they might embody it for that end. On the other hand, if the PRESIDENT -was empowered to raise an army, as he is to direct its motions when -raised, he might wish to assemble it for the sake of the influence to be -acquired by the command. The constitution had wisely guarded against -that danger on either side. He could not, in the present case, consent -to the breaking down of this barrier of public safety. He saw no -necessity for it; nor any violent probability, that this country will be -speedily invaded by any force, to which the present military -establishment cannot make an adequate resistance. Let us hear from the -Minister whom we have just sent to Britain, before we take such abrupt -and expensive measures. We shall certainly hear from him, at least, -before we are invaded. Now, if we enter into a calculation of the time -requisite for his arrival in Britain, for commencing his business, and -for sending back an account of what kind of reception he has met with, -we shall find that by this period, Congress will have met again; or at -least, the interval will be so small as to make it not worth while to -embrace any measure of this kind. - -Upon the whole, he could not venture to give his consent for violating -so salutary a principle of the constitution as that upon which this bill -encroached. - -Mr. SEDGWICK differed from Mr. MADISON. He did not think that, in -certain contingencies, war was so distant a prospect. Simcoe is going to -erect a fort in our territories, and the PRESIDENT has declared that he -will repel the attempt. We all know the waste of time and property in -the last war, at its commencement, by trying to do the business with -militia. The proposal met his approbation, as did the resolution of the -PRESIDENT to repel force by force. - -Mr. FINDLAY spoke against the bill. - -The question was then stated, to wit: "Shall the said bill be rejected?" -and, after debate thereon, the question being taken, it was resolved in -the affirmative--yeas 50, nays 32. - -_Advance of Money to France._ - -Mr. PARKER then moved that the House take into consideration the bill -for the payment of a certain sum of money to the French Republic. - -The House resolved itself into a committee on this bill, Mr. PARKER in -the chair. - -Several amendments were proposed, and several members spoke. - -Mr. GILES knew that Mr. Fauchet was anxious for this money, and spoke of -it as necessary for his operations. He did not know whether to-day, -to-morrow, or at what time in particular; but in fact the money was -needed. He had another remark to make. This loan of three millions of -florins had come upon all parts of the House alike unexpectedly. Before -it was known, we heard of no particular complaints from the Treasury, -for want of money to raise the fortifications. But now, when the loan -was come, the tone was altered, and there was a loud cry of emptiness in -the Treasury. - -Mr. GILLON said, that gentlemen talked of giving this money, as if we -were doing a favor to France. Is this so? We are sending a new -ambassador to that country. A very pretty introduction truly he would -have at Paris, with our credentials in one hand, and a refusal to pay -the debts due to the Republic in the other. We have been in need of her -assistance before, and we may want it again. - -The committee made some amendments; the Chairman reported them, and the -bill finally passed the House. - - -FRIDAY, June 5. - -_Protection of South-western Frontier._ - -The House proceeded to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate to -the bill, entitled "An act for the more effectual protection of the -South-western frontier settlers." - -Mr. GILES expressed the utmost surprise at such a proposal. First, it -had been projected to raise a standing army of fifteen thousand men, -then twenty-five thousand, then ten thousand; and now, when all these -schemes had been put to an end, this regiment of eleven hundred and -forty men has appeared. Proteus never assumed a greater number of shapes -than this attempt has done. His jealousy was highly excited by such a -steady adherence to an idea so extremely offensive. The people of the -United States did not wish to be trodden down by a Continental army. How -this amendment might sit on the stomachs of some people, he could not -say; but, if he were one of the gentlemen who represented the people -from whom the requisition for defence had come, the amendment of the -Senate would sit very badly indeed upon his stomach. - -Mr. NICHOLAS said, that a bill had been wanted to _protect_ the -frontiers, but, by this amendment, the bill would _scourge_ them. He -wondered at the pertinacity of some people, in adhering to the idea of a -standing army. Mr. N. enlarged considerably on the question before the -House. - -Mr. MCDOWELL had lived long on the frontiers, and he believed that he -understood, from personal experience, what was the proper mode of -defending them, as well as perhaps any gentleman on that floor. He was -against the amendment, because he knew, from repeated experiments, that -regular troops were, in this kind of service, altogether useless. The -militia of the frontiers, who knew the country, and whose habits of life -made them perfectly acquainted with the character of the enemy whom they -had to encounter, were the only proper forces to oppose the Indians with -success. But why Government should burden itself with a useless expense, -or the people with a kind of defence which they disliked, Mr. McD. did -not know. Perhaps there was no part of the Union that had behaved so -prudently and so pacifically as the citizens on the South-western -frontiers. Yet Indian treaties were constantly broken by the savages -themselves. Gentlemen who had never been witnesses to the scene, did not -feel it, with adequate comprehension or sensibility. A man went to his -corn-field, along with his son, who was shot dead by his side. He came -home, and found his wife and the rest of his family murdered. -Circumstances of this kind, and of which Mr. McD. drew an affecting -picture, were too dreadful for human patience to support. - -Mr. BOUDINOT thought that the militia could not be kept together for six -months, and that it was better to have regular troops. - -Mr. AMES replied to Mr. GILES. It was wrong to say that this was part of -a system, and that the twenty-five thousand men had been part of it. He -saw no such thing. We have one Indian war already, which is enough at a -time. Those whom we are now to quarrel with, are three times more -numerous than those to the North-west. The Creeks, Cherokees, Choctaws, -and Chickasaws, were, as Mr. A. had been informed, fifteen thousand -fighting men. He did not think that there were too many Indians on the -frontier, any more than too many wild beasts. The one might, by skilful -management, be rendered as harmless as the other. Even the success of an -Indian war, by extending our frontier, augments the number of our -enemies; so that the task is hopeless, and has no end. Distance from the -seat of Government would increase, and with it the charges of defence. -He was not one of those who wished to exterminate these poor creatures. -He recommended a system of restraint on both sides. He could wish for -something as strong as the Chinese wall to separate them. When an -exasperated militia went out, what were we to expect, but that the first -man with a red skin whom they met would be shot? Presently you discover -that you have been shooting an Indian of the wrong nation, while, in the -mean time, this whole nation rises and attacks you. The Continental -troops, as being less exasperated, were less apt to fall into mistakes -of this kind. He did not wish the militia to be called out in such -numbers as were proposed by the bill when sent up to the Senate. He -wished, if possible, for a restraint on both parties. He was for the -amendment. - -Mr. MURRAY was of the same opinion. It was not once in ten times that, -when an Indian was killed by a white man, the murderer could be -convicted. As to the standing army being an object of alarm, he -ridiculed that idea. But, at any rate, it was possible to limit the -operations of this regiment of eleven hundred and forty men to the -South-western frontier, if gentlemen were afraid of their being marched -up and down the country. - -Mr. GILLON said, that there was something in this question, just like -that some days since, about the galleys. If you do not want them, they -shall not be forced upon you. He could not see their use in South -Carolina. It was a body of militia that was wanted. There are no tumults -in South Carolina to be repressed by a standing army. The expedition -against Spain is knocked up. What occasion, then, can there be for them? -He feared that this corps was only a part of the old leaven, the gilding -of a bad pill He liked this proposal better than the others of the same -sort, only because, as the numbers are inferior, the evils are less. Mr. -G. had no idea of hiring other people to do for us what we can do for -ourselves. He had voted against the twenty-five thousand men, and the -ten thousand, and he should also vote against the present number. - -Mr. MADISON said, that he would not enter at large into this subject, -but there was one circumstance in the business which struck him as very -strange. It was proposed to raise a new corps, at a bounty of twenty -dollars. The present army wanted more than the whole number of this -corps to fill up its deficiencies, and yet the proposal for completing -them had been rejected. Thus are we to be at the expense of supporting -the skeleton of an army. Was it not better to fill up the old corps, -than to put ourselves to the inconvenience of raising a new one? - -Mr. MCDOWELL rose to correct what had fallen from Mr. AMES, as to the -strength of the Indian nations on the South-western frontier. The -Choctaws and Chickasaws are, and always have been, friends to the white -people, and ready to fight for them. The Creeks and Cherokees do not, at -the most, extend to more than seven or eight thousand men. - -Mr. CARNES.--The only use that Continental troops can be of is to defend -posts; and it has been found, by the experience of several years, that -posts do more mischief than service. They are established at a distance -of fifteen or twenty miles from each other. The Indian parties slip in -between them; and the frontier settlers, depending on the protection of -the regulars, are not, as they otherwise would be, upon their guard -against the savages. The consequence is, that they are frequently -murdered; while the only service performed by the Continentals is, that -when the militia pursue the Indians, they are prevented by the former -from crossing what is called the line. That is the whole service which -they have performed in Georgia. In short, against the Creeks, they are -good for nothing. Mr. C. wished that gentlemen would frankly say, once -for all, that the Georgians did not deserve protection, and then the -State would know what was to be done. He insisted on it, that, in -Georgia, there were improper leanings in favor of the Indians. He -referred to some persons in office, whom he specified. He believed -sincerely that the Senate imagined themselves to be acting for the best; -but they could not be such competent judges as persons on the spot. -Within the last seven years, there has not been a single instance of an -Indian killed by a white man, unless when the Indians themselves began -the quarrel. During the last ten or twelve years, there had been stolen -from Georgia, horses to the amount of a hundred thousand dollars. These -were often the chief property of poor people, who had nothing else to -depend on for supporting their families. Gentlemen say that we have one -Indian war already. But if you have two hands, both in the fire at -once, will you pull out one before the other? The Creeks are a savage -and faithless tribe. Some years ago, a treaty was made with them at New -York; and this treaty cost, in presents, sixty-one thousand dollars. -Well, before the chiefs got home, a fresh set of murders were committed. -A set of commissioners were next sent, and this embassy cost perhaps a -hundred and fifty thousand dollars more. Gentlemen might talk as they -thought fit about Indians; for his own part, he would not give the life -of one white man for those of fifty Indians. The militia had been always -successful against them, and the regulars had always been beaten; this -showed the futility of the present amendment from the Senate. Of the -successes of the militia, he gave some striking instances, where they -had defeated three or four times their own number. As an evidence of the -improper leaning on behalf of the Indians, Mr. C. adverted to what had -just happened in Georgia. A gang of savages stole some horses. -Lieutenant Hay, with a party of dragoons, pursued them, and fell into an -ambuscade, where Mr. Hay and two men were killed. This was the way that -the Creeks kept a peace. Soon after, an Indian, being found in the -State, was wounded; and in the correspondence read the other day to the -House, it was so stated, as if the white people were to blame. It made -every drop of blood in his heart boil, to hear what he heard in this -city as to the character and conduct of his constituents. As a -Representative of Georgia, he _demanded_ effectual aid for that State. -If the House did not choose to grant it, he warned them that the -Georgians would take measures for themselves. It was needless to speak -of economy, after squandering such vast sums as he had mentioned, in the -purchase of treaties that were never kept. He was against the amendment -of the Senate. - -Mr. DAYTON rose to contradict one assertion, which had fallen from the -gentleman, viz: that the regulars were always beaten by the Indians. If -gentlemen exercised their memories, or attended to historical facts, -they would see the contrary. General Sullivan had entered the country of -the Six Nations, had defeated them, and destroyed their towns, and since -that time they had been looked upon as a subdued people. Mr. D. was -himself in the army on that expedition, and a witness to the success of -the regulars. He was for the amendment. - -The question was put that the House do concur with the Senate in the -said amendment, and passed in the negative--yeas 26, nays 42, as -follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, - Jonathan Dayton, George Dent, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight - Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, James Gordon, William - Hindman, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned, Francis Malbone, - William Vans Murray, Theodore Sedgwick, William Smith, - Zephaniah Swift, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. - Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, Jeremiah - Wadsworth, and John Watts. - - NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, John Beatty, - Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Thomas Claiborne, Isaac - Coles, William J. Dawson, Henry Dearborn, William Findlay, - William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Alexander Gillon, - Nicholas Gilman, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William - Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, William Lyman, Nathaniel - Macon, James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, - William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Joseph Neville, John - Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston, - Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John Smilie, Jeremiah - Smith, Thomas Sprigg, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van - Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Benjamin - Williams, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston. - -_Ordered_, That the further consideration of the said amendments be put -off till to-morrow. - - -SATURDAY, June 7. - -Mr. THATCHER moved that such members as had received their pay up to -Monday next, and then absented themselves, should be ordered next -session to return as much as they had received for the days when absent. -The motion was ordered to lie on the table. - - -MONDAY, June 9. - -LEMUEL BENTON (from South Carolina) appeared, produced his credentials, -and took his seat in the House; the oath to support the Constitution of -the United States being first administered to him by Mr. SPEAKER, -according to law. - -Mr. BENTON (from South Carolina) informed the SPEAKER, that he had been -prevented by indisposition in his family, and a long voyage, from -attending his duty sooner in that House. This was the day of -adjournment, and he wished to inform the House, that he should decline -receiving pay for his travelling expenses, or attendance. He was not -willing to qualify himself this day, unless it could be noted on the -journals that he had refused any compensation. He took the oath. - -A message from the Senate informed the House, that the Senate having -completed the Legislative business before them, are now about to adjourn -until the first Monday in November next: Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER -adjourned the House until the first Monday in November next.[51] - - - - -THIRD CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION. - -HELD IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, NOVEMBER 3, 1794. - -PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE. - - -MONDAY, November 3, 1794. - -The following Senators appeared, and took their seats: - -RALPH IZARD, President _pro tem._, from South Carolina. - -JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire. - -GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts. - -OLIVER ELLSWORTH, from Connecticut. - -THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island. - -MOSES ROBINSON, from Vermont. - -RUFUS KING, from New York. - -ROBERT MORRIS, from Pennsylvania. - -JOHN BROWN, from Kentucky. - -BENJAMIN HAWKINS, from North Carolina. - -The number assembled not being sufficient to constitute a quorum to do -business, the Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning. - - -TUESDAY, November 4. - -The Senate assembled: present as yesterday. JOHN VINING, from the State -of Delaware, attended. - - -MONDAY, November 10. - -The Senate assembled: present as on the 7th; and - -JOHN ADAMS, Vice President of the United States and President of the -Senate, attended. - -ALEXANDER MARTIN, from the State of North Carolina, and JAMES JACKSON, -from the State of Georgia, severally attended. - -The number assembled not being sufficient to constitute a quorum to do -business, the Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning. - - -TUESDAY, November 11. - -The Senate assembled: present as yesterday; and WILLIAM BRADFORD, from -the State of Rhode Island, attended. - - -MONDAY, November 17. - -The Senate assembled: present as on Friday. - -The number assembled not being sufficient to form a quorum, the VICE -PRESIDENT was requested by the Senators present, to write a letter to -each of the absent Senators, stating that a fortnight has already -elapsed without the formation of a Senate, and urging their immediate -attendance as necessary to enable Congress to commence the business of -the session. - -The Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning. - - -TUESDAY, November 18. - -AARON BURR, from New York, appeared to-day, which formed a quorum, and -enabled the Senate to proceed to business. - -Messages were accordingly exchanged between the two Houses, and a joint -committee was appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, -to inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and are -ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to -them. - -Mr. IZARD, from the joint committee appointed for the purpose, reported -that the PRESIDENT would meet the two Houses in the Representatives' -Chamber at 12 o'clock to-morrow. - - -WEDNESDAY, November 19. - -JOHN EDWARDS, from Kentucky, this day attended. - -The Senate agreeably to appointment attended in the House of -Representatives, in order to receive the PRESIDENT's communications; -and, on their return, the PRESIDENT's Speech was read, as follows: - - _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:_ - - When we call to mind the gracious indulgence of Heaven, by - which the American people became a nation; when we survey - the general prosperity of our country, and look forward to - the riches, power, and happiness, to which it seems - destined; with the deepest regret do I announce to you, - that, during your recess, some of the citizens of the - United States have been found capable of an insurrection. - It is due, however, to the character of our Government, and - to its stability, which cannot be shaken by the enemies of - order, freely to unfold the course of this event. - - During the session of the year one thousand seven hundred - and ninety, it was expedient to exercise the Legislative - power, granted by the Constitution of the United States, - "to lay and collect excises." In a majority of the States, - scarcely an objection was heard to this mode of taxation. - In some, indeed, alarms were at first conceived, until they - were banished by reason and patriotism. In the four western - counties of Pennsylvania, a prejudice, fostered and - embittered by the artifice of men, who labored for an - ascendency over the will of others, by the guidance of - their passions, produced symptoms of riot and violence. It - is well known, that Congress did not hesitate to examine - the complaints which were presented; and to relieve them, - as far as justice dictated, or general convenience would - permit. But the impression which this moderation made on - the discontented, did not correspond with what it deserved. - The arts of delusion were no longer confined to the efforts - of designing individuals. The very forbearance to press - prosecutions was misinterpreted into a fear of urging the - execution of the laws; and associations of men began to - denounce threats against the officers employed. From a - belief, that, by a more formal concert, their operation - might be defeated, certain self-created societies assumed - the tone of condemnation. Hence, while the greater part of - Pennsylvania itself were conforming themselves to the acts - of excise, a few counties were resolved to frustrate them. - It was now perceived, that every expectation from the - tenderness which had been hitherto pursued was unavailing, - and that further delay could only create an opinion of - impotency or irresolution in the Government. Legal process - was therefore delivered to the Marshal against the rioters - and delinquent distillers. - - No sooner was he understood to be engaged in this duty, - than the vengeance of armed men was aimed at _his_ person, - and the person and property of the Inspector of the - Revenue. They fired upon the Marshal, arrested him, and - detained him, for some time as a prisoner. He was obliged, - by the jeopardy of his life, to renounce the service of - other process, on the west side of the Alleghany Mountain; - and a deputation was afterwards sent to him to demand a - surrender of that which he _had_ served. A numerous body - repeatedly attacked the house of the Inspector, seized his - papers of office, and finally destroyed by fire his - buildings and whatsoever they contained. Both of these - officers, from a just regard to their safety, fled to the - seat of Government; it being avowed, that the motives to - such outrages were to compel the resignation of the - Inspector; to withstand by force of arms the authority of - the United States; and thereby to extort a repeal of the - laws of excise, and an alteration in the conduct of - Government. - - Upon the testimony of these facts, an Associate Justice of - the Supreme Court of the United States notified to me that - "in the counties of Washington and Alleghany, in - Pennsylvania, laws of the United States were opposed, and - the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too - powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of - judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the - Marshal of that district." On this call, momentous in the - extreme, I sought and weighed what might best subdue the - crisis. On the one hand, the Judiciary was pronounced to be - stripped of its capacity to enforce the laws; crimes, which - reached the very existence of social order, were - perpetrated without control; the friends of government were - insulted, abused, and overawed into silence, or an - apparent acquiescence; and, to yield to the treasonable - fury of so small a portion of the United States would be to - violate the fundamental principle of our constitution, - which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail. - On the other, to array citizen against citizen, to publish - the dishonor of such excesses, to encounter the expense, - and other embarrassments, of so distant an expedition, were - steps too delicate, too closely interwoven with many - affecting considerations, to be lightly adopted. I - postponed, therefore, the summoning the militia immediately - into the field; but, I required them to be held in - readiness, that, if my anxious endeavors to reclaim the - deluded, and to convince the malignant of their danger, - should be fruitless, military force might be prepared to - act, before the season should be too far advanced. - - My Proclamation of the 7th of August last was accordingly - issued, and accompanied by the appointment of - commissioners, who were charged to repair to the scene of - insurrection. They were authorized to confer with any - bodies of men or individuals. They were instructed to be - candid and explicit in stating the sensations which had - been excited in the Executive, and his earnest wish to - avoid a resort to coercion; to represent, however, that, - without submission, coercion _must_ be the resort; but to - invite them, at the same time, to return to the demeanor of - faithful citizens, by such accommodations as lay within the - sphere of Executive power. Pardon, too, was tendered to - them by the Government of the United States, and that of - Pennsylvania, upon no other condition than a satisfactory - assurance of obedience to the laws. - - Although the report of the commissioners marks their - firmness and abilities, and must unite all virtuous men, by - showing that the means of conciliation have been exhausted, - all of those who had committed or abetted the tumults did - not subscribe the mild form which was proposed as the - atonement; and the indications of a peaceable temper were - neither sufficiently general nor conclusive to recommend or - warrant the further suspension of the march of the militia. - - Thus, the painful alternative could not be discarded. I - ordered the militia to march--after once more admonishing - the insurgents, in my Proclamation of the 25th of September - last. - - It was a task too difficult to ascertain with precision the - lowest degree of force competent to the quelling of the - insurrection. From a respect, indeed, to economy, and the - ease of my fellow-citizens belonging to the militia, it - would have gratified me to accomplish such an estimate. My - very reluctance to ascribe too much importance to the - opposition, had its extent been accurately seen, would have - been a decided inducement to the smallest efficient - numbers. In this uncertainty, therefore, I put into motion - fifteen thousand men, as being an army which, according to - all human calculation, would be prompt and adequate in - every view, and might, perhaps, by rendering resistance - desperate, prevent the effusion of blood. Quotas had been - assigned to the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, - Maryland, and Virginia; the Governor of Pennsylvania having - declared, on this occasion, an opinion which justified a - requisition to the other States. - - Among the discussions which may arise from this aspect of - our affairs, and from the documents which will be submitted - to Congress, it will not escape their observation, that not - only the Inspector of the Revenue, but other officers of - the United States in Pennsylvania, have, from their - fidelity in the discharge of their functions, sustained - material injuries to their property. The obligation and - policy of indemnifying them are strong and obvious. It may - also merit attention, whether policy will not enlarge this - provision to the retribution of other citizens, who, though - not under the ties of office, may have suffered damage by - their generous exertions for upholding the constitution and - the laws. The amount, even if all the injured were - included, would not be great; and, on future emergencies, - the Government would be amply repaid by the influence of an - example, that he who incurs a loss in its defence, shall - find a recompense in its liberality. - - While there is cause to lament that occurrences of this - nature should have disgraced the name, or interrupted the - tranquillity of any part of our community, or should have - diverted, to a new application, any portion of the public - resources, there are not wanting in real and substantial - consolations for the misfortune. It has demonstrated, that - our prosperity rests on solid foundations; by furnishing an - additional proof, that my fellow-citizens understand the - true principles of government and liberty; that they feel - their inseparable union; that notwithstanding all the - devices which have been used to sway them from their - interest and duty, they are now as ready to maintain the - authority of the laws against licentious invasions, as they - were to defend their rights against usurpation. It has been - a spectacle, displaying to the highest advantage the value - of Republican government, to behold the most and the least - wealthy of our citizens standing in the same ranks, as - private soldiers, pre-eminently distinguished by being the - army of the constitution; undeterred by a march of three - hundred miles over rugged mountains, by the approach of an - inclement season, or by any other discouragement. Nor ought - I to omit to acknowledge the efficacious and patriotic - co-operation which I have experienced from the Chief - Magistrates of the States to which my requisitions have - been addressed. - - To every description of citizens, indeed, let praise be - given. But let them persevere in their affectionate - vigilance over that precious depository of American - happiness, the Constitution of the United States. Let them - cherish it, too, for the sake of those who, from every - clime are daily seeking a dwelling in our land. And when, - in the calm moments of reflection, they shall have retraced - the origin and progress of the insurrection, let them - determine whether it has not been fomented by combinations - of men, who, careless of consequences, and disregarding the - unerring truth that those who rouse cannot always appease a - civil convulsion, have disseminated, from an ignorance or - perversion of facts, suspicions, jealousies, and - accusations, of the whole Government. - - The intelligence from the army under the command of General - Wayne is a happy presage to our military operations against - the hostile Indians north of the Ohio. From the advices - which have been forwarded, the advance which he has made - must have damped the ardor of the savages, and weakened - their obstinacy in waging war against the United States. - And yet, even at this late hour, when our power to punish - them cannot be questioned, we shall not be unwilling to - cement a lasting peace, upon terms of candor, equity, and - good neighborhood. - - Towards none of the Indian tribes have overtures of - friendship been spared. The Creeks, in particular, are - covered from encroachment by the interposition of the - General Government, and that of Georgia. From a desire, - also, to remove the discontents of the Six Nations, a - settlement meditated at Presqu'isle, on Lake Erie, has been - suspended; and an agent is now endeavoring to rectify any - misconception into which they may have fallen. But I cannot - refrain from again pressing upon your deliberations the - plan which I recommended at the last session, for the - improvement of harmony with all the Indians within our - limits, by the fixing and conducting of trading houses upon - the principles then expressed. - - _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_ - - The time which has elapsed since the commencement of our - fiscal measures has developed our pecuniary resources, so - as to open the way for a definitive plan for the redemption - of the public debt. It is believed that the result is such - as to encourage Congress to consummate this work without - delay. Nothing can more promote the permanent welfare of - the nation, and nothing would be more grateful to our - constituents. Indeed, whatsoever is unfinished of our - system of public credit, cannot be benefited by - procrastination; and, as far as may be practicable, we - ought to place that credit on grounds which cannot be - disturbed, and to prevent that progressive accumulation of - debt, which must ultimately endanger all governments. - - An estimate of the necessary appropriations, including the - expenditures into which we have been driven by the - insurrection, will be submitted to Congress. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _November_ 19, 1794. - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. KING, ELLSWORTH, and IZARD, be a committee to -report the draft of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in -answer to his Speech this day to both Houses of Congress. - - -THURSDAY, November 20. - -Mr. KING, from the committee, reported an Address to the PRESIDENT OF -THE UNITED STATES, in reply to his Speech of the 19th to both Houses of -Congress, which was read. - -_Ordered_, That to-morrow be assigned to take this report into -consideration. - - -FRIDAY, November 21. - -The Senate took into consideration the report of the committee, in reply -to the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of -Congress at the opening of the session; and it was agreed to consider -the report in paragraphs. - -On motion of Mr. BURR, seconded by Mr. JACKSON, to expunge these words: - - "Our anxiety, arising from the licentious and open - resistance to the laws in the western counties of - Pennsylvania, has been increased by the proceedings of - certain self-created societies, relative to the laws and - administration of the Government; proceedings, in our - apprehension, founded in political error, calculated, if - not intended, to disorganize our Government, and which, by - inspiring delusive hopes of support, have been influential - in misleading our fellow-citizens in the scene of - insurrection:" - -It passed in the negative. - -On motion to amend the paragraph respecting the army, under the command -of General Wayne, to be read as follows: - - "The pleasure with which we learn the success of the - Western Army under the command of General Wayne, is - enhanced by the hope, that their victories will lay the - foundation of a just and durable peace with the _Indian_ - tribes:" - -It passed in the negative. - -On motion to strike out of the paragraph respecting the Western Army, -the words, "General and," it passed in the negative. - -And the several paragraphs reported by the committee being agreed to, -the report was adopted, as follows: - - SIR: We receive with pleasure your Speech to the two Houses - of Congress. In it we perceive renewed proofs of that - vigilant and paternal concern for the prosperity, honor, - and happiness of our country, which has uniformly - distinguished your past administration. - - Our anxiety arising from the licentious and open resistance - to the laws in the western counties of Pennsylvania, has - been increased by the proceedings of certain self-created - societies, relative to the laws and administration of the - Government; proceedings, in our apprehension, founded in - political error, calculated, if not intended, to - disorganize our Government, and which, by inspiring - delusive hopes of support, have been influential in - misleading our fellow-citizens in the scene of - insurrection. - - In a situation so delicate and important, the lenient and - persuasive measures which you adopted merit and receive our - affectionate approbation. These failing to produce their - proper effect, and coercion having become inevitable, we - have derived the highest satisfaction from the enlightened - patriotism and animating zeal with which the citizens of - New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, have - rallied around the standard of Government, in opposition to - anarchy and insurrection. - - Our warm and cordial acknowledgments are due to you, sir, - for the wisdom and decision with which you arrayed the - militia, to execute the public will; and to them, for the - disinterestedness and alacrity with which they obeyed your - summons. - - The example is precious to the theory of our Government, - and confers the brightest honor upon the patriots who have - given it. - - We shall readily concur in such farther provisions for the - security of internal peace and a due obedience to the laws, - as the occasion manifestly requires. - - The effectual organization of the militia, and a prudent - attention to the fortifications of our ports and harbors, - are subjects of great national importance, and together - with the other measures you have been pleased to recommend, - will receive our deliberate consideration. - - The success of the troops under the command of General - Wayne cannot fail to produce essential advantages. The - pleasure with which we acknowledge the merits of that - gallant General and army, is enhanced by the hope that - their victories will lay the foundation of a just and - durable peace with the Indian tribes. - - At a period so momentous in the affairs of nations, the - temperate, just, and firm policy that you have pursued, in - respect to foreign powers, has been eminently calculated to - promote the great and essential interest of our country, - and has created the fairest title to the public gratitude - and thanks. - - JOHN ADAMS, - - _Vice President of the United States, - and President of the Senate_. - -_Ordered_, That the committee who prepared the Address wait on the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and desire him to acquaint the Senate at -what time and place it will be most convenient for him that it should be -presented. - -Mr. KING reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that he would receive the Address of -the Senate to-morrow at 12 o'clock, at his own house. - - -SATURDAY, November 22. - -The Senate waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and the VICE -PRESIDENT, in their name, presented the Address agreed to on the 21st -instant. - -To which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was pleased to make the -following reply: - - _Gentlemen:_ - - Among the occasions which have been afforded for expressing - my sense of the zealous and steadfast co-operation of the - Senate, in the maintenance of Government, none has yet - occurred more forcibly demanding my unqualified - acknowledgments than the present. - - Next to the consciousness of upright intentions, it is the - highest pleasure to be approved by the enlightened - Representatives of a free nation. With the satisfaction, - therefore, which arises from an unalterable attachment to - public order, do I learn, that the Senate discountenance - those proceedings, which would arrogate the direction of - our affairs, without any degree of authority derived from - the people. - - It has been more than once the lot of our Government to be - thrown into new and delicate situations; and of these, the - insurrection has not been the least important. Having been - compelled at length to lay aside my repugnance to resort to - arms, I derive much happiness from being confirmed by your - judgment in the necessity of decisive measures, and from - the support of my fellow-citizens of the militia, who were - the patriotic instruments of that necessity. - - With such demonstrations of affection for our constitution; - with an adequate organization of the militia; with the - establishment of necessary fortifications; with a - continuance of those judicious and spirited exertions which - have brought victory to our Western Army; with a due - attention to public credit and an unsullied honor towards - all nations; we may meet, under every assurance of success, - our enemies from within and from without. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - - - -The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and then adjourned. - - -MONDAY, November 24. - -JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey, attended. - - -WEDNESDAY, November 26. - -JOHN HENRY, from Maryland, and JAMES ROSS, from Pennsylvania, severally -attended. - - -FRIDAY, November 28. - -STEPHEN R. BRADLEY, from Vermont, and CALEB STRONG, from Massachusetts, -severally attended. - - -TUESDAY, December 9. - -RICHARD POTTS, from Maryland, attended to-day. - - -THURSDAY, December 11. - -FREDERICK FRELINGHUYSEN, from New Jersey, attended. - - -MONDAY, December 15. - -STEPHEN MIX MITCHELL, from Connecticut, attended to-day. - - -MONDAY, December 29. - -HENRY TAZEWELL, appointed a Senator by the State of Virginia, in the -place of JOHN TAYLOR, resigned, produced his credentials, which were -read, and the VICE PRESIDENT administered to him the oath required by -law, and he took his seat in the Senate. - - -FRIDAY, February 20. - -The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of -a PRESIDENT _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and SAMUEL -LIVERMORE was duly elected; who, declining the appointment, - -The Senate proceeded to the election of HENRY TAZEWELL to that office. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES, and notify him of the election of Mr. TAZEWELL to be PRESIDENT -of the Senate _pro tempore_. - - -SATURDAY, February 28. - -HENRY LATIMER, from the State of Delaware, in place of GEORGE READ, -resigned, attended, and produced his credentials, which were read; and, -the oath prescribed by law being administered, he took his seat in the -Senate. - -JAMES GUNN, from Georgia, attended. - - -TUESDAY, March 3. - -Mr. BURR laid before the Senate a motion, as follows: - - "_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of - the United States of America in Congress assembled, - two-thirds of both Houses concurring_, That the following - article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several - States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United - States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said - Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the said - constitution, to wit: - - "That the term for which the members of the Senate and - House of Representatives of the next Congress are or shall - be chosen shall expire on the first day of June next - following the third day of March, on which it would have - expired if this amendment to the constitution had not been - adopted." - -_Ordered_, That this motion lie for consideration. - - -TUESDAY EVENING, March 3. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the -House, having finished the business of the session, are about to -adjourn. - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. IZARD and MORRIS be a committee, jointly, with -such committee as the House of Representatives may appoint on their -part, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him that -Congress is ready to adjourn without day, unless he may have any further -communications to make. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives -therewith, and desire the appointment of a committee on their part. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the -House have appointed a joint committee on their part to wait on the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him that Congress is ready to -adjourn. - -Mr. IZARD reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on -the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, who informed them that he had no -further communications to make to Congress during this session. -Whereupon, it was - -_Resolved_, That the Senate adjourn without day. - - - - -EXECUTIVE JOURNAL. - -THE TENTH SESSION OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, CONVENED ON - -MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1795. - - -MONDAY, June 8, 1795. - -Pursuant to a call from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in a -circular addressed to the several Senators, informing each that "certain -matters touching the public good required that the Senate should be -convened on the above day, at the Senate Chamber, in Philadelphia, then -and there to receive and deliberate on such communications as he shall -then make to them:" the Senate assembled accordingly. - -PRESENT. JOHN ADAMS, Vice President of the United States and President -of the Senate. - -_From New Hampshire._--JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE. - -_From Massachusetts._--CALEB STRONG and GEORGE CABOT. - -_From Vermont._--MOSES ROBINSON. - -From _Connecticut_.--OLIVER ELLSWORTH and JONATHAN TRUMBULL. - -_From Rhode Island._--THEODORE FOSTER and WILLIAM BRADFORD. - -_From New York._--RUFUS KING and ARRON BURR. - -_From New Jersey._--JOHN RUTHERFORD. - -_From Pennsylvania._--JAMES ROSS and WILLIAM BINGHAM. - -_From Delaware._--HENRY LATIMER. - -_From Maryland._--RICHARD POTTS. - -_From Virginia._--HENRY TAZEWELL and STEVENS THOMSON MASON. - -_From Kentucky._--JOHN BROWN and HUMPHREY MARSHALL. - -_From North Carolina._--ALEXANDER MARTIN and TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH. - -_From South Carolina._--JACOB READ. - -_From Georgia._--JAMES JACKSON. - -_Ordered_, That Mr. STRONG and Mr. LANGDON be a committee to wait on the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that a quorum of the -Senate is assembled, and ready to receive any communications he may be -pleased to make. - -Mr. STRONG reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that he informed them he would make -some communications to the Senate immediately. - - -TUESDAY, June 9. - -PIERCE BUTLER, from the State of South Carolina, and FREDERICK -FRELINGHUYSEN, from the State of New Jersey, severally attended. - -JAMES GUNN, from the State of Georgia, produced his credentials, and, -the usual oath being administered, took his seat in the Senate. - - -FRIDAY, June 12. - -JOHN HENRY, from the State of Maryland, produced his credentials, and, -the usual oath being administered, he took his seat in the Senate. - - -SATURDAY, June 13. - -ELIJAH PAINE, from the State of Vermont, produced his credentials, and -the usual oath being administered, he took his seat in the Senate. - - -MONDAY, June 15. - -JOHN VINING, from the State of Delaware, attended. - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the Treaty, communicated by the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, with his Message of the 8th instant: -and, after progress, the Senate adjourned. - - -WEDNESDAY, June 17. - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the Treaty, communicated with -the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the 8th instant, -and after discussion on the remaining articles, a motion was made and -seconded, that it he - - "_Resolved_, (two-thirds of the Senate concurring therein,) - That they do consent to, and advise the President of the - United States, to ratify the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and - Navigation, between His Britannic Majesty and the United - States of America, concluded at London, the 19th day of - November, 1794, on condition that there be added to the - said Treaty an article whereby it shall be agreed to - suspend the operation of so much of the 12th article as - respects the trade which his said Majesty thereby consents - may be carried on between the United States and his Islands - in the West Indies, in the manner, and on the terms and - conditions therein specified. - - "And the Senate recommend to the President, to proceed, - without delay, to further friendly negotiations with His - Majesty, on the subject of the said trade, and of the terms - and conditions in question." - -On motion, it was agreed, that this motion lie for consideration until -to-morrow.[52] - - -MONDAY, June 22. - -The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary -for the Department of State, with a "list of the negroes, to which the -correspondence between the Commander-in-chief of the American Army and -Sir Guy Carleton relates;" which was read, and, with the document -referred to, ordered to lie on the table. - - -WEDNESDAY, June 24. - -_Deported Slaves of the Revolution._ - -A motion was made by Mr. GUNN, seconded by Mr. READ, as follows: - - "Whereas it is alleged by divers American citizens, that - negroes, and other property, to a considerable amount, were - carried away, in contravention of the seventh article of - the Treaty of Peace between the United States and His - Britannic Majesty: - - "_Resolved_, That the Senate recommend to the President of - the United States, to renew, by friendly negotiation with - his said Majesty, the claims of the American citizens, to - compensation for the negroes and other property, so alleged - to have been carried away; and in case the disagreement - that has hitherto existed, relative to the construction in - this behalf of the said article, cannot be removed by - candid and amicable discussions, that it be proposed, as a - measure calculated to cherish and confirm the good - understanding and friendship which it is desired may - prevail between the two countries, that commissioners be - appointed, in the manner directed by the sixth article of - the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, lately - concluded between the United States and his said Majesty, - with authority to ascertain and decide, as well the - interpretation of the said seventh article in this respect, - as likewise the amount of the losses sustained by the - alleged violation of the same. - - "But the Senate are of opinion that the negotiation on this - subject should be distinct from, and subsequent to that - recommended by their act of the 24th instant, respecting - the trade and intercourse between the United States and his - said Majesty's islands in the West Indies." - -And, after debate, it was agreed that this motion lie until to-morrow -for consideration. - - -THURSDAY, June 25. - -The motion made by Mr. GUNN, as last recited, and yesterday referred to -this day for consideration, was resumed. - -On motion to divide this motion, and to agree to all that is contained -from the word "_whereas_," to the word "_same_," at the end of the first -paragraph of the resolution inclusive, it passed in the -affirmative--yeas 27, nay 1, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bloodworth, Bradford, Brown, Burr, - Butler, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, Frelinghuysen, Gunn, - Jackson, King, Langdon, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, - Martin, Paine, Potts, Read, Robinson, Boss, Rutherford, - Strong, Trumbull, and Vining. - - Mr. Tazewell voted in the negative.[53] - -The yeas and nays were required by one-fifth of the Senators present. - - Those who voted in the affirmative, are--Messrs. Bingham, - Bradford, Butler, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, Frelinghuysen, - Gunn, King, Latimer, Livermore, Paine, Potts, Read, Ross, - Rutherford, Strong, Trumbull, and Vining. - - These who voted in the negative, are--Messrs. Bloodworth, - Brown, Burr, Jackson, Langdon, Marshall, Martin, Mason, - Robinson, and Tazewell. - -Yeas 19, nays 10. So the question of reconsideration was lost, there -not being two-thirds of the Senators present in the affirmative. - -On motion, by Mr. RUTHERFORD, for the question on the resolution as -amended, to wit: - - "Whereas, it is alleged by divers American citizens, that - negroes and other property, to a considerable amount, were - carried away in contravention of the 7th article of the - Treaty of Peace between the United States and His Britannic - Majesty: - - "_Resolved_, That the Senate recommend to the PRESIDENT OF - THE UNITED STATES to renew, by friendly negotiation with - his said Majesty, the claims of the American citizens to - compensation for the negroes and other property so alleged - to have been carried away; and in case the disagreement, - that has hitherto existed relative to the construction in - this behalf of the said article, cannot be removed by - candid and amicable discussions, that it be proposed, as a - measure calculated to cherish and confirm the good - understanding and friendship which it is desired may - prevail between the two countries, that commissioners be - appointed in the manner directed by the 6th article of the - Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation lately concluded - between the United States and his said Majesty, with - authority to ascertain and decide, as well the - interpretation of the said 7th article, in this respect, as - likewise the amount of the losses sustained by the alleged - violation of the same." - -It passed in the negative--yeas 14, nays 15, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Butler, Burr, Gunn, - Jackson, Langdon, Marshall, Martin, Mason, Paine, Read, - Robinson, and Tazewell. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, - Frelinghuysen, King, Latimer, Livermore, Potts, Ross, - Rutherford, Strong, Trumbull, and Vining. - - -FRIDAY, June 26. - -Mr. CABOT reported that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES had no -further communications to make to the Senate, than his hearty wishes -that, in a speedy meeting with their friends, they may enjoy every -felicity. - -On motion, - -_Ordered_, That there be paid by the Secretary of the Senate, out of the -moneys appropriated for the contingent expenses of the Senate, to James -Mathers, Doorkeeper, three dollars per day, and to Cornelius Maxwell, -assistant Doorkeeper, two dollars per day, as compensation for their -respective attendance during this special session of the Senate, over -and above their stated allowance. - -On motion, the Senate adjourned without day. - -Attest: - - SAM. A. OTIS, _Secretary_. - - - - -THIRD CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION. - -PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES - -IN - -THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. - - -MONDAY, November 3, 1794. - -The following members appeared, and took their seats, to wit: - -_From New Hampshire._--NICHOLAS GILMAN, JEREMIAH SMITH, and PAINE -WINGATE. - -_From Massachusetts._--FISHER AMES, DAVID COBB, HENRY DEARBORN, DWIGHT -FOSTER, BENJAMIN GOODHUE, SAMUEL HOLTEN, GEORGE THATCHER, PELEG -WADSWORTH, and ARTEMAS WARD. - -_From Connecticut._--JOSHUA COIT, AMASA LEARNED, ZEPHANIAH SWIFT, URIAH -TRACY, and JONATHAN TRUMBULL. - -_From Vermont._--ISRAEL SMITH. - -_From New York._--THEODORUS BAILEY, PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, and JOHN -WATTS. - -_From New Jersey._--JOHN BEATTY and ELIAS BOUDINOT. - -_From Pennsylvania._--THOMAS HARTLEY, JOHN WILKES KITTERA, FREDERICK A. -MUHLENBERG, (Speaker,) and PETER MUHLENBERG. - -_From Maryland._--GABRIEL CHRISTIE and GEORGE DENT. - -_From Virginia._--ISAAC COLES, SAMUEL GRIFFIN, JOHN HEATH, JOSEPH -NEVILLE, ANTHONY NEW, JOSIAH PARKER, and ROBERT RUTHERFORD. - -_From Kentucky._--CHRISTOPHER GREENUP. - -_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT, WILLIAM JOHNSTON DAWSON, -NATHANIEL MACON, and ALEXANDER MEBANE. - -_From South Carolina._--WILLIAM SMITH. - -_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN. - -A quorum of the whole number not being present, the House adjourned -until to-morrow. - - -TUESDAY, November 4. - -Several other members, to wit: from Rhode Island, FRANCIS MALBONE; from -New York, HENRY GLENN, JAMES GORDON, and JOHN E. VAN ALLEN; from New -Jersey, JONATHAN DAYTON; from Pennsylvania, THOMAS FITZSIMONS; from -Delaware, HENRY LATIMER; from Maryland, WILLIAM VANS MURRAY; from -Virginia, GEORGE HANCOCK, RICHARD BLAND LEE, JAMES MADISON, ANDREW -MOORE, FRANCIS PRESTON, and FRANCIS WALKER; and from North Carolina, -MATTHEW LOCKE, appeared, and took their seats in the House. - -And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being -present, - -_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate, to inform them that a -quorum of this House is assembled, and ready to proceed to business; and -that the Clerk of this House do go with said message. - - -WEDNESDAY, November 5. - -Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, JOHN S. SHERBURNE; -from Massachusetts, WILLIAM LYMAN; from Connecticut, JAMES HILLHOUSE; -from Vermont, NATHANIEL NILES; from New York, EZEKIEL GILBERT; from -Maryland, WILLIAM HINDMAN; from Virginia, THOMAS CLAIBORNE; and from -Georgia, THOMAS P. CARNES, appeared, and took their seats in the House. - -Notice was received that the Senate had not yet been able to form a -quorum. - -Upon this, Mr. DAYTON moved that a committee shall be appointed to -examine the business left unfinished last session, and report to the -House. He saw no reason for losing time by waiting for the Senate. - -Mr. GOODHUE objected to the motion as improper. - -Mr. DAYTON challenged the gentleman to point out wherein the impropriety -consisted. For two or three weeks the House of Representatives would -have full employment, while the Senate, in reality, had none. He was -positive as to the legality and expediency of proceeding. - -The SPEAKER put the question, and the ayes and noes were equal, each -being twenty-five. - -The SPEAKER then informed the House that, as a quorum of their number -was not present, it would be requisite to adjourn. - -The House rose immediately, after adjourning till to-morrow. - - -THURSDAY, November 6. - -Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, PELEG COFFIN, and from -Virginia, JOHN NICHOLAS, appeared, and took their seats in the House. - - -FRIDAY, November 7. - -Several other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, JAMES ARMSTRONG and -WILLIAM MONTGOMERY; from Virginia, WILLIAM B. GILES; from North -Carolina, JOSEPH WINSTON; and from South Carolina, JOHN HUNTER, -appeared, and took their seats in the House. - -On motion, - -_Resolved_, That a Standing Committee of Elections be appointed, whose -duty it shall be to examine and report upon the certificates of -election, or other credentials of the members returned to serve in this -House, and to take into their consideration all such matters as shall or -may come in question, and be referred to them by the House, touching -returns and elections, and to report their proceedings with their -opinion thereupon, to the House. - -And a committee was appointed of Mr. DAYTON, Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. -SHERBURNE, Mr. DENT, Mr. LEE, Mr. MACON, and Mr. HUNTER. - -_Ordered_, That the letter from the Governor of Maryland, together with -the return of the election of Gabriel Duvall, to serve as one of the -members of this House for the said State, in the room of JOHN FRANCIS -MERCER, who has resigned his seat, which was laid before the House at -the last session, be referred to the said Committee of Elections. - - -MONDAY, November 10. - -Several other members, to wit: from New York, THOMAS TREDWELL; from New -Jersey, LAMBERT CADWALADER; from Pennsylvania, JOHN SMILIE; from North -Carolina, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE and JOSEPH MCDOWELL; and from South -Carolina, RICHARD WINN, appeared, and took their seats in the House. - -The SPEAKER informed the House that the Senate had not yet been able to -make a quorum. Fifteen members only appeared. One more was necessary. - - -TUESDAY, November 11. - -Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, SHEARJASHUB BOURNE, and -from New York, PETER VAN GAASBECK, appeared, and took their seats in the -House. - -The SPEAKER informed the House that one Senator was yet wanting to the -making of a quorum. [The Senate consists of thirty members, of whom only -fifteen have yet (Tuesday) made their appearance; of consequence, a -majority is wanting. The VICE PRESIDENT has, it is true, arrived, but -he is not, strictly speaking, a Senator. He does not give a vote in -questions that come before the Senate, unless the voices on a division -are equal.] - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from James White, enclosing -the credentials of his appointment as a Representative of the territory -of the United States, south of the river Ohio, in the Congress of the -United States, according to the ordinance of Congress of the thirteenth -of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven; which were read, -and ordered to be referred to Mr. BALDWIN, Mr. GILBERT, Mr. WALKER, Mr. -SWIFT, and Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH, with instructions to examine the matter -thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the -House. - - -WEDNESDAY, November 12. - -Another member, to wit, CARTER B. HARRISON, from Virginia, appeared, and -took his seat in the House. - - -THURSDAY, November 13. - -Two other members, to wit: ANDREW GREGG and DANIEL HEISTER, from -Pennsylvania, appeared, and took their seats in the House. - - -FRIDAY, November 14. - -Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, SAMUEL DEXTER; from -Virginia, ABRAHAM VENABLE; and from Kentucky, ALEXANDER D. ORR, -appeared, and took their seats in the House. - - -MONDAY, November 17. - -Two other members, to wit: from Rhode Island, BENJAMIN BOURNE, and from -South Carolina, ANDREW PICKENS, appeared, and took their seats in the -House. - -_Delegate south of the Ohio._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -report of the committee to whom was referred the letter from JAMES -WHITE, together with the credentials of his appointment as a -Representative of the territory of the United States south of the river -Ohio. - -Mr. SWIFT objected to complying with the report of the committee. He -thought that it could not be carried into execution, because it involved -inconsistencies. If the object of the law referred to, was to admit this -person to debate, and not to vote, that was unconstitutional. He was, by -that law, to be a member of Congress; but the House of Representatives -are not Congress, and, therefore, this person may equally vote in the -House of Representatives and in the Senate; while, at the same time, he -may interrupt the PRESIDENT consenting to a bill, by giving his advice. -The constitution has made no provision for such a member as this person -is intended to be. If we can admit a delegate to Congress or a member of -the House of Representatives, we may with equal propriety admit a -stranger from any quarter of the world. We may as well admit the -gallery, or a foreign Minister, as this person from the territory -south-west of the Ohio. At this rate, we may very soon overturn the -constitution. If this person has any proper title to a seat, it must be -in the Senate; it could not be in the House of Representatives, who were -not delegates. The Senate, perhaps, might be called such. His election -was nearer the mode of theirs, than that of this House. - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) had no difficulty in declaring that the -gentleman was fully qualified to take a seat in that House, by the terms -of an express compact with the people. He was convinced that the -Representatives have a right to admit those whom they regard as lawfully -entitled to a seat in the House, for the purpose of debating. They may -admit the Secretary of State, if they consider it as expedient. If this -gentleman had applied to the Senate, that body also were authorized to -admit him, if they thought it lawful. Under the old constitution, he -would have been a member _sui generis_. He does not claim a right of -voting, but of speaking only; and when the affairs of the South-western -Territory were agitated in the Senate, he had a right, in his (Mr. S.'s) -judgment, to speak and debate in that House also. Mr. S. wished that -there had been previously settled another part of this business, viz: by -whom the delegate was to be paid for his attendance. It may be a future -question, also, whether he is to be dismissed when the galleries are -cleared? - -Mr. GILES was not prepared to speak on the subject. On the score of -expediency, his present opinion was, that the delegate from the -south-west of the Ohio should be admitted. He had no objection to the -motion of the member from Maryland, (Mr. MURRAY,) for the committee -rising, but he would never consent to it for the sake of consulting the -Senate. He would agree to it, for the sake of further deliberation among -themselves. If the House chose to consult the _gallery_--a resource for -information that he should never wish to see adopted--they had a right -to consult it, or to ask advice from any other quarter, notwithstanding -the assertion of the gentleman from Connecticut. - -Mr. DEXTER said, he thought the obstacle should be got over by a formal -act of the Legislature. He was clear that the House had a right to -consult or admit to the privilege of debating, any individual whom they -thought proper. They might, for instance, admit an advocate to plead; in -a particular case; but that was entirely a different matter from -allowing him to give a vote on the question before the House. Mr. D. -declared that he would vote against the report, as it now stands, not -because he thought the gentleman from the South-western Territory -unentitled to a seat, but because he regarded an act of the whole -Legislature as a requisite for his introduction. - -It was now moved that the committee should rise, and report the -resolution of the select committee. - -Mr. W. SMITH differed from Mr. DEXTER. He thought the House of -Representatives was, in itself, perfectly competent to settle the point. -He was determined that they ought not to consult the Senate upon the -matter. It would be extremely improper to let the Senate interfere. He -again adverted to his former position, that the House may, if it sees -proper, introduce the Secretary of State to a privilege of being -consulted, or any other person who may be thought suitable. But he would -never submit to yield the privileges of the House to the Executive. They -ought to decide their elections on their own authority, and on no -occasion send to inquire of the Senate if such an amendment ought to be -admitted. Mr. S. considered the gentleman (Mr. WHITE) as expressly -within the present constitution. He trusted that the committee would not -rise, under any such idea as consulting the Senate; but, if they at -present rise, that it would be merely for the sake of obtaining further -information. - -Mr. MURRAY.--If we could have foreseen this case, I am sure that we -should have had a joint committee of privileges from both Houses, as -judges. The situation of the gentleman refers to both, and therefore the -Senate ought to be consulted on this head. Perhaps he is entitled to a -seat in both Houses. - -Mr. MCDOWELL objected, that an act of the Legislature would never, -practically, answer the purpose. The session would be next to ending, -before such a law would be passed. In the mean time, the interest of the -people south-west of the Ohio is agitated in a question, and their -delegate is condemned to silence. The members generally admit, in -substance, that he ought to be received into this House. He wished, -therefore, that they would take a vote on the resolution of the select -committee. He would object altogether to the proposal of the member from -Maryland, for an act of the Legislature, or any consultation with, the -Senate. Mr. MCD. was for admitting the member to his seat. - -Mr. BOUDINOT observed, that it was universally agreed that the old law -for accepting such a member as a delegate of Congress, cannot be -executed in its full sense. The gentleman ought, in his opinion, to go -where members elected by Legislatures went, that is to say, to the -Senate. There was no pretence for his admission among the -Representatives of the people. If he had any right, it must be in the -other House. He thought this a very important question, and that it -deserved more consideration than it had yet received. Mr. B. was not -prepared to vote; but, if he was forced to give his voice at present, he -should be for remitting the gentleman to the Senate. He thought that -there should be an act of the whole Legislature. He should vote for the -committee rising. - -Mr. DAYTON said, that he should vote against the motion of the Maryland -member, for the rising of the committee. He was against the object of -this motion. He agreed entirely with the report of the select committee -for receiving the south-western member immediately, as he had a right to -a seat, founded on an original compact, which gave it to him. He -objected to any concurrence of the Senate being asked. As to consulting -persons out of doors, the House had a right to call Heads of Departments -to give their opinions on any particular subject, if they thought -proper. Mr. D. mentioned some cases of this nature, where such an -expedient had been used. - -Mr. GILES mentioned one reason against the committee rising, which was, -that the House had no other business before it. He then read an -amendment to the resolution of the select committee, as a middle course, -that would embrace the ideas of all parties. - -Mr. DEXTER repeated some of his former reasons for preferring an act of -the Legislature. - -The question was called for, and put by the Chairman, Shall the -committee now rise, and report progress? It was decided in the -negative--yeas 38, nays 39. - -The question was then put on the resolution, as given by the committee. -Mr. GILES again proposed his amendment. This was, that after the word -"debating," in the resolution, there should be added, "upon any question -touching the rights and interests of people in the territory of the -United States south-west of the Ohio." The object was to narrow the -power of the delegate. - -Mr. SMILIE was for his being admitted to deliberate on every subject, or -none at all. - -Mr. GILES declared that he was very well pleased with the resolution, as -it originally stood. He had only suggested this amendment that he might -get the resolution through the House. He therefore withdrew his motion. - -Mr. BALDWIN did not see that the question was of much importance. When a -member was permitted to speak, but forbidden to vote, his situation was, -no doubt, infinitely higher than that of strangers in the gallery, that -of an advocate allowed to plead at the bar of the House, or that of a -printer who came only to take notes; but still it was extremely short of -the situation of a member of Congress. This would be more especially the -case, if his right of debating was restricted to the affairs of the -North-west and South-west Territory. Mr. B. could see nothing in the new -constitution that made an exclusion of the delegate from the south-west -of the Ohio. This privilege had been solemnly promised to those people, -upon three different occasions. When they belonged to the State of South -Carolina, they sent a Representative, Mr. SEVIER, to Congress; and they -separated into a new State, under the promise of this privilege. But -now, we have made a discovery, that these laws cannot be put into -execution. It is a great pity that we had not made this discovery -sooner. Mr. B. rejected all idea of referring this matter to the Senate. -When the latter had any question of that kind, that concerned -themselves, they would, no doubt, judge for themselves, and that just as -properly as the House of Representatives. As to the pay of this -gentleman, that might be an after question. He was clear that there at -present existed no law which could make out that. The House may -hereafter, if they see fit, pass a law respecting it. But, in the mean -time, Mr. B. was satisfied that these people had a claim for a delegate, -which could not be got rid of by the House. - -Mr. SWIFT thought that it would be better to erect these people into a -new State, and then the privilege would be of some real use to them. He -was still of opinion that the constitution admits of no such delegate as -this person is intended to be. He is a new kind of character, unknown to -it. This person is _sui generis_. If the constitution knows any thing -about him, then take him; if not, reject him. As to taking advice from -the gallery, Mr. S. seemed to think he had been misunderstood. To admit -a person within the bar for the purpose of consulting him, was a quite -different thing from permitting the gallery, like this person, to come -and take a permanent seat among the members, for the purpose of -regularly debating. Mr. S. never meant to debar the House from taking -information wherever they could find it. - -Mr. MURRAY was concerned that he found himself obliged to vote against -the resolution of the Committee of the Whole. He still hoped that the -gentleman would have a seat, but that the Senate would first be -consulted. - -Mr. WINGATE moved an amendment to take the resolution, by adopting these -words, "to a seat in Congress, as a delegate to Congress." - -Mr. MADISON said, that the resolution, as passed by the select -committee, was so properly expressed, that he did not believe it could -admit of any amendment or alteration whatever. - -The Committee of the whole House then divided on the resolution, when -there appeared a very large majority in favor of reporting it as it -first stood, and consequently for admitting Mr. WHITE as a delegate. The -committee then rose. - - -TUESDAY, November 18. - -Another member, to wit, THEODORE SEDGWICK, from Massachusetts, appeared, -and took his seat in the House. - -_Delegate south of the Ohio._ - -The House proceeded to consider the report of the committee on the -letter from JAMES WHITE, enclosing the credentials of his appointment as -a Representative of the territory of the United States south of the -river Ohio; to which the Committee of the whole House reported no -amendment. Whereupon, the said report being again read at the Clerk's -table, was, on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the House, as -follows: - - "That, by the ordinance for the government of the territory - of the United States north-west of the river Ohio, section - nine, it is provided, "that, so soon as there shall be five - thousand free male inhabitants of full age in the district, - upon giving proof thereof to the Governor, they shall - receive authority to elect Representatives to represent - them in a General Assembly;" and by the 12th section of the - Ordinance, "as soon as a Legislature shall be formed in the - District, the Council and House, assembled in one room, - shall have authority, by joint ballot, to elect a delegate - to Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a - right of debating but not of voting, during this temporary - government." Full effect is given to this Ordinance by act - of Congress, August 7, 1789. - - "That, by the Deed of Cession of the territory south of the - river Ohio, to the United States, in the fourth article, it - is also provided 'that the inhabitants of the said - territory shall enjoy all the privileges, benefits, and - advantages, set forth in the Ordinance of the late Congress - for the government of the Western Territory; that is to - say, Congress shall assume the government of the said - territory, which they shall execute in a manner similar to - that which they support in the territory west of the Ohio, - and shall never bar or deprive them of any privilege which - the people in the territory west of the Ohio enjoy.' - - "The cession, on these conditions, was accepted by act of - Congress, on the 2d of April, 1790. - - "By an act passed the 26th of May, 1790, for the government - of the territory of the United States south of the river - Ohio, it is enacted, 'that the inhabitants shall enjoy all - the privileges, benefits, and advantages, set forth in the - Ordinance of the late Congress for the government of the - territory of the United States north-west of the river - Ohio. And the government of the said territory south of the - river Ohio, shall be similar to that which is now exercised - in the territory north-west of the river Ohio; except so - far as is otherwise provided in the conditions expressed in - an act of Congress of the present session, entitled 'An act - to accept a cession of the claim of the State of North - Carolina to a certain district of Western Territory.' The - committee are of opinion that James White has been duly - elected as delegate from the territory of the United States - south of the Ohio, on the terms of the foregoing acts; they - therefore submit the following resolution: - - "_Resolved_, that James White be admitted to a seat in this - House as a delegate from the territory of the United States - south of the river Ohio, with a right of debating but not - of voting." - -Mr. MADISON said, that in new cases there often arose a difficulty by -applying old names to new things. The proper definition of Mr. WHITE is -to be found in the laws and rules of the constitution. He is not a -member of Congress, therefore, and so cannot be directed to take an -oath, unless he chooses to do it voluntarily. - -Mr. MURRAY moved that Mr. WHITE should be required to take the oath. - -Mr. W. SMITH observed, that the constitution only required members and -the Clerk to take the oath. The gentleman was not a member. It does not -even appear for what number of years he is elected. In fact he is no -more than an envoy to Congress. Instead of being called delegate to -Congress, had he been plainly called an envoy, the difficulty would have -vanished. He is not a Representative from, but an officer deputed by -the people of the Western Territory. It is very improper to call on this -gentleman to take such an oath, any more than any civil officer in the -State of Pennsylvania. Mr. S. did not consider him as coming even within -the Post Office law, (viz: for franking letters.) He is not entitled to -pay, unless a law shall be passed for that end. - -Mr. GILES agreed with the gentleman who spoke last as to the impropriety -of demanding an oath. - -Mr. LYMAN was for it. - -Mr. DAYTON was against the oath. Call him what you will, a member, a -delegate, or, if you please, a _nondescript_. It would be wrong to -accept his oath, even if he should offer it. He is not a member. He -cannot vote, which is the essential part. It is said that he can argue, -and by that means influence the votes of the House. But so also a -printer may be said to argue and influence, when he comes to this House, -takes notes, and prints them in the newspapers. - -Mr. BOUDINOT.--As the House had set out on a wrong principle, it was -natural that, in their subsequent progress they should wander further -and further from the point. But, as the House had now given their -decision, he acquiesced in it. It was, however, a strange kind of thing -to have a gentleman here arguing, who was not bound by an oath. He never -could reconcile it. - -Several other members spoke. - -The House divided on the question, "Shall the delegate take an oath as a -member?" Ayes 32, noes 42--majority against the motion, 10. - -_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a bill extending -the privilege of franking to JAMES WHITE, the delegate from the -South-western Territory, and making provision for his compensation; and -that Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. THATCHER, and Mr. MACON, be the said -committee. - - -WEDNESDAY, November 19. - -Another member, to wit, THOMAS SCOTT, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and -took his seat in the House. - -_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this -House is now ready to attend them in receiving the communication from -the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to his notification to -both Houses yesterday; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the -said message. - -The Senate attended and took seats in the House; when, both Houses being -assembled, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the -Representatives' Chamber, and delivered his Address to them. (For which -see Proceedings of the Senate.) - -The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES then withdrew and the two Houses -separated. - -_Ordered_, that the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both -Houses be committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow. - - -THURSDAY, November 20. - -Another member, to wit, WILLIAM FINDLAY, from Pennsylvania, appeared, -and took his seat in the House. - - -MONDAY, November 24. - -_Answer to the President's Speech._[54] - -Mr. NICHOLAS then rose in defence of Mr. MADISON's amendment. He thought -the House should not bow so much to the Executive as to approve of his -proceedings without knowing what they are. Gentlemen say that they do -not mean an implicit approbation. Why, then, hazard words that infer it? -He would go as far in thanking the PRESIDENT as any person with -propriety could go. - -Mr. SEDGWICK insisted that the amendment of the member from Connecticut -(Mr. HILLHOUSE) was preferable to the other. The PRESIDENT has said that -his policy in regard to foreign nations is founded on justice. We -approve of that. He recites his motives. They are also approved. Where, -then, is the danger of expressing a general approbation? Would it be -proper to give an approbation that cannot be appropriate, and that has -no definite meaning? Mr. S. was far from designing to approve, -explicitly or implicitly, what the House were not acquainted with. He -only intended to convey a general sentiment of approbation; and he saw -nothing more than this in the amendment of the gentleman from -Connecticut. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE never designed indiscriminate approbation; nor had he any -secret meaning couched under the words of his amendment. When he had any -thing to say to the House, he came honestly and told them in plain words -what he would be at. He meant to express his applause of pacific and -equitable measures. As to the question so often referred to, (the -embassy of Mr. Jay,) he solemnly declared that it never was in his mind -to express any thing about it. It would come before another body. - -Mr. MADISON imagined that, in his motion as now worded, every person -might see substantial approbation. - -Mr. AMES.--Jealousy may become habitual as well as confidence. Nothing -but a habit of jealousy could have found any thing of a secret in this -verbal distinction of _your_ policy instead of _a_ policy. The -distinction was trifling, but, if there must be one, he preferred the -amendment of Mr. HILLHOUSE. His reasons for this preference were so -minute that they, perhaps, had little more value than what his -imagination chose to give them. In the mean time, nobody will suppose -that we do not approve of the policy of the PRESIDENT in preferring -pacific measures, because the system of peace is now preferred all over -the Continent of America. - -Mr. DAYTON rose to make a reply to "remarks so illiberal." - -Mr. AMES here rose again and said that the gentleman certainly could not -mean him. - -I mean _that_ gentleman, Mr. SPEAKER, said Mr. DAYTON, pointing to Mr. -AMES. He has accused me of "habits of jealousy." To this charge Mr. D. -rejoined with some warmth. He again declared that he never would pledge -himself to approve of the mission of Mr. Jay, till he should learn what -were that gentleman's instructions. He meant to draw this line of -distinction, to give approbation of general principles, but not of -particular measures. The former he considered as implied in the -amendment of Mr. MADISON, the latter in that of Mr. HILLHOUSE. - -Mr. VANS MURRAY considered the dispute as resting on the words _a_ -policy and _your_ policy. He would not give explicit approbation to -particular measures, but he approved the general principles on which the -PRESIDENT preferred a pacific system. - -Mr. GILES.--It is admitted on all sides of the House, that we approve -the general principles, but will not pledge ourselves to approve the -particular means. It is best, then, to adopt the least equivocal words. -Mr. G. allowed that there was but little difference, yet he should vote -for the amendment of Mr. MADISON as it stood. - -Mr. DEXTER, in opposition to the sentiments of the gentleman who had -last sat down, would vote for "_your_ policy," instead of "_a_ policy." -The latter made the sentence an abstract proposition. The words "_your_ -policy," made it a personal application. The omission of the word _your_ -tended to an implication of censure. If an abstract proposition was the -whole meaning intended to be expressed, that meaning might as well be -put into any other place as into an Address to the PRESIDENT. He did not -see the use of it. Praise (said Mr. D.) is the only reward which a -person receives in a Republican Government; or at least, it is the -greatest reward; and if withheld where due, the effect must be -pernicious. Here it would be of more particular impropriety to withhold -praise, when all our constituents approve the pacific policy of the -PRESIDENT. It would have been a matter of little consequence at first, -whether "_a_ policy" or "_your_ policy" had been adopted, for every -reader would have understood it as an approbation of the PRESIDENT. But -now, after such a debate, if we scruple at the word _your_, all the -world will conclude that we mean an implied censure. - -Mr. BOUDINOT said that he adopted the word _your_ as unequivocal. He had -no meaning but what was open and candid. By adopting the amendment the -House would make that language explicit, which was at present, at least -in some degree, ambiguous. - -Mr. TRACY pronounced an elegant panegyric on the character and conduct -of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, whom no man admired more -sincerely than he did, though he could not speak thus from the honor of -enjoying a personal acquaintance. He recommended to Mr. MADISON rather -to withdraw his motion of amendment altogether than bring it forward at -such an expense of the good temper of the House. The present session had -commenced with good auspices, and much cordiality, and he would be -extremely sorry to disturb its tranquillity. - -Mr. MADISON said that he felt sensibly the force of the remarks made by -the gentleman who was last up. In consequence of these remarks, he -should be happy to withdraw his amendment. This was accordingly done. - -It was then proposed that the Committee of the whole House should rise, -and report the draft of the Address as originally given in by the -special committee, with the additional amendment that had been proposed -by Mr. DAYTON, and adopted. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS then rose and said, that it would seem somewhat -incongruous for the House to present an Address to the PRESIDENT which -omitted all notice of so very important an article in his Speech as that -referring to the self-created societies. Mr. F. then read an amendment, -which gave rise to a very interesting debate. The amendment was in these -words: - - "As part of this subject, we cannot withhold our - reprobation of the self-created societies, which have risen - up in some parts of the Union, misrepresenting the conduct - of the Government, and disturbing the operation of the - laws, and which, by deceiving and inflaming the ignorant - and the weak, may naturally be supposed to have stimulated - and urged the insurrection." - -These are "institutions, not strictly unlawful, yet not less fatal to -good order and true liberty; and reprehensible in the degree that our -system of government approaches to perfect political freedom." - -Mr. GILES stated at large his sentiments as to this expression in the -Speech of the PRESIDENT about self-created societies. The tone of that -passage in the Speech had made a great deal of noise without doors, and -it was likely to produce a considerable agitation within doors. [Here a -motion was made for the rising of the committee.] Mr. G. did not wish to -press himself upon the attention of the committee, but if they were -disposed to hear him, he was prepared to proceed. - -Mr. SEDGWICK objected to the rising of the committee. The House had been -often entertained and informed by the ingenuity of that gentleman, who -was now prepared to address them. - -Mr. W. SMITH considered it as opposite to the practice of the House for -a member to move that a committee should rise, at the very time when -gentlemen had declared themselves ready to deliver their sentiments. - -[It was repeatedly inquired from the Chair, by whom this motion was -made. No answer was given and it seemed to be the unanimous wish of the -House that Mr. GILES should proceed, which he did.] Mr. G. began by -declaring that, when he saw, or thought he saw, the House of -Representatives about to erect itself into an office of censorship, he -could not sit silent. He did not rise with the hope of making -proselytes, but he trusted that the fiat of no person in America should -ever be taken for truth, implicitly, and without evidence. - -Mr. GILES next entered into an encomium of some length on the public -services and personal character of the PRESIDENT. He vindicated himself -from any want of respect or esteem towards him. He then entered into an -examination of the propriety of the expression employed by the -PRESIDENT, with regard to self-created societies. Mr. G. said, that -there was not an individual in America, who might not come under the -charge of being a member of some one or other self-created society. -Associations of this kind, religious, political, and philosophical, were -to be found in every quarter of the Continent. The Baptists and -Methodists, for example, might be termed self-created societies. The -people called the Friends, were of the same kind. Every pulpit in the -United States might be included in this vote of censure, since, from -every one of them, upon occasion, instructions had been delivered, not -only for the eternal welfare, but likewise for the temporal happiness of -the people. There had been other societies in Pennsylvania for several -purposes. The venerable Franklin had been at the head of one, entitled a -society for political information. They had criminated the conduct of -the Governor of this State and of the Governors of other States, yet -they were not prosecuted or disturbed. There was, if he mistook not, -once a society in this State, for the purpose of opposing or subverting -the existing constitution. They also were unmolested. If the House are -to censure the Democratic societies, they might do the same by the -Cincinnati Society. It is out of the way of the Legislature to attempt -checking or restraining public opinion. If the self-created societies -act contrary to law, they are unprotected, and let the law pursue them. -That a man is a member of one of these societies will not protect him -from an accusation for treason, if the charge is well founded. If the -charge is not well founded, if the societies, in their proceedings, keep -within the verge of the law, Mr. G. would be glad to learn what was to -be the sequel? If the House undertake to censure particular classes of -men, who can tell where they will stop? Perhaps it may be advisable to -commence moral philosophers, and compose a new system of ethics for the -citizens of America. In that case, there would be many other subjects -for censure, as well as the self-created societies. Land-jobbing, for -example, has been in various instances brought to such a pass that it -might be defined swindling on a broad scale. Paper money, also, would be -a subject of very tolerable fertility for the censure of a moralist. Mr. -G. proceeded to enumerate other particulars on this head, and again -insisted on the sufficiency of the existing laws for the punishment of -every existing abuse. He observed, that gentlemen were sent to this -House, not for the purpose of passing indiscriminate votes of censure, -but to legislate only. By adopting the amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS, the -House would only produce recrimination on the part of the societies, and -raise them into much more importance than they possibly could have -acquired if they had not been distinguished by a vote of censure from -that House. Gentlemen were interfering with a delicate right, and they -would be much wiser to let the Democratic societies alone. Did the House -imagine that their censure, like the wand of a magician, would lay a -spell on these people? It would be quite the contrary, and the -recrimination of the societies would develope the propriety of having -meddled with them at all. One thing ought never to be forgotten, that if -these people acted wrong, the law was open to punish them; and if they -did not, they would care very little for a vote of that House. Why all -this particular deviation from the common line of business to pass -random votes of censure? The American mind was too enlightened to bear -the interposition of this House, to assist either in their -contemplations or conclusions on this subject. Members are not sent here -to deal out applauses or censures in this way. Mr. G. rejected all -aiming at a restraint on the opinions of private persons. As to the -societies themselves, Mr. G. personally had nothing to do with them, nor -was he acquainted with any of the persons concerned in their original -organization. - -Mr. LYMAN hoped that the member from Pennsylvania would, upon -reflection, withdraw his amendment. Mr. L. considered it to be as -improper to pass a vote of censure, as it would be to pass a vote of -approbation. He did not wish to give printers an opportunity of -publishing debates that had better be suppressed. Besides, where will -this business of censorship end? It would be much better not to meddle -with the Democratic societies at all. Some of them were perfectly -sensible that they had gone too far. He should, therefore, move that -this committee do now rise, and that the Chairman report the Address as -it now stands. - -Mr. THATCHER hoped that his colleague would not insist on taking that -question just now, before other gentlemen had an opportunity of -delivering their sentiments. - -Mr. LYMAN, in reply, said that gentlemen were at liberty, in discussing -his motion, to tell their minds as to the self-created societies. - -Mr. SEDGWICK requested that Mr. LYMAN would take this motion out of the -way. Mr. L. withdrew it. - -Mr. W. SMITH then rose, and entered at large into the subject. He said, -that if the committee withheld an expression of their sentiments in -regard to the societies pointed out by the PRESIDENT, their silence -would be an avowed desertion of the Executive. He had no scruple to -declare that the conduct of these people had tended to blow up the -insurrection. Adverting to Mr. GILES, he thought the assertion of that -gentleman too broad, when he spoke of not meddling with the opinions of -other than political societies. - -He considered the dissemination of improper sentiments as a suitable -object for the public reprobation of that House. Suppose an agricultural -society were to establish itself, and under that title to disseminate -opinions subversive of good order; the difference of a name should not -make Mr. S. think them exempted from becoming objects of justice. Would -any man say that the sole object of self-created societies has been the -publication of political doctrines? The whole of their proceedings has -been a chain of censures on the conduct of Government. If we do not -support the PRESIDENT, the silence of the House will be interpreted into -an implied disapprobation of that part of his Speech. He will be left in -a dilemma. It will be said that he has committed himself. - -Mr. S. declared that he was a friend to the freedom of the press; but -would any one compare a regular town-meeting where deliberations were -cool and unruffled, to these societies, to the nocturnal meetings of -individuals, after they have dined, where they shut their doors, pass -votes in secret, and admit no members into their societies, but those of -their own choosing? Mr. S., by way of illustration, observed, that this -House had never done much business after dinner. In objection to this -amendment it had been stated, that the self-created societies would -acquire importance from a vote of censure passed on them. They were, for -his part, welcome to the whole importance that such a vote could give -them. He complained, in strong terms, of the calumnies and slanders -which they had propagated against Government. Every gentleman who -thought that these clubs had done mischief, was by this amendment called -upon to avow his opinion. This was the whole. Mr. S. begged the House to -take notice, and he repeated his words once or twice, that he did not -mean to go into the constitution of these societies, or to say that they -were illegal. The question before the House was not whether these -societies were illegal or not, but whether they have been mischievous in -their consequences. - -Mr. MCDOWELL was of opinion that the term self-created societies, was -too indefinite. He professed the highest respect for the character of -the PRESIDENT; but he did not think that the proposed vote of censure -would be any eligible proof of it. The House of Representatives were -assembled not to volunteer in passing votes of reprobation on societies, -or individuals, but to legislate. He wished that gentlemen, instead of -losing their time on such frivolous and inflammatory amendments, would -proceed to the proper business of the House. The gentleman from South -Carolina seemed to be well acquainted with Democratic societies. It was -very true that they had published resolutions reprobating the assumption -business, and the system of funding; but the rest of the people, as well -as Democratic societies, had very generally censured the assumption and -the funding transactions. He thought that some laws had been passed -which answered no good purpose, nor indeed any purpose, but that of -irritating the public. The present amendment he considered as -destructive not only to the intercourse of domestic society, but that it -involved a prospect of throwing restraint upon the conduct of gentlemen -in the House of Representatives. With the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. -GILES,) he was satisfied that the amendment, if adopted, would have no -weight whatever with the citizens of the United States; as they were too -enlightened to accept of opinions from their Representatives. - -Mr. TRACY had imagined that no man would have the hardihood to come -forward in that House and vindicate these societies. He quoted from the -remarks of Mr. MCDOWELL, the words, "your wanton laws, begotten in -darkness, first raised insurrection;" and likewise some other words -about the enormous expense of millions for the Western expedition. Mr. -T., after reading these expressions from a memorandum, which he held in -his hand, declared his surprise, that a gentleman, whom he knew to -possess the candor and good sense of the member from North Carolina, -could suffer such language to escape him. He was certain that the -gentleman, if he had not been somewhat in a hurry, never would have -permitted those words to pass from his lips. - -Quitting this topic, Mr. T. said, that he would, for his own part, be -disposed to let these societies alone, and leave them to the -chastisement of their own consciences. If they were to say, "Gentlemen, -you, as tyrants, make laws, and slaves obey them," I would answer, said -Mr. T., "It is very rash. Think again before you say this again. We -believe that, from inadvertency, some things have escaped from -Democratic societies, which they had not well weighed, and which had a -bad effect on weak and ignorant people in the western counties of -Pennsylvania. You have seen the bad effects of your temerity. Take care -before you publish any such thing again." Mr. T. said, this is all the -length which we mean to go, and can any body object to this? The -Democratic societies form but a very small portion of the people of -America. Where is the harm in saying that one-hundredth, or, I believe I -might say, not more than one-thousandth part of the citizens of the -United States have been mistaken, and that they have been imprudent in -printing certain indiscreet resolutions? Mr. T. declared that if the -PRESIDENT had not spoke of the matter, he should have been willing to -let it alone, because whenever a subject of that kind was touched, there -were certain gentlemen in that House who shook their backs, like a -sore-backed horse, and cried out, The Liberties of the people! Mr. T. -wished only that the House, if their opinion of these societies -corresponded with that of the PRESIDENT, should declare that they had -such an opinion. This was quite different from attempting to legislate -on the subject. Has not the Legislature done so before? Is there any -impropriety in paying this mark of respect to a man to whom all America -owes such indelible obligations? He thought that this declaration from -the House of Representatives would tend to discourage Democratic -societies, by uniting all men of sense against them. Mr. T. said, that -perhaps the member who spoke last might be connected with some of these -societies, of which he entertained so favorable an impression. - -Mr. MCDOWELL said, that he wanted the House to avoid quarrels, and to -mind their proper business of legislation. He declared that he was not a -member of any such society. He did not know that he had ever been in the -company of any person who was a member of any of them. He was even, he -declared upon his honor, ignorant whether there were, or ever had been, -any such societies in North Carolina. He adverted to the simile of the -sore-backed horse, and said that he believed his back to have been -rubbed harder in the last war, than that of the gentleman. He imagined -that these societies had done both good and harm, and again declared, -that he could not consent to a vote of indiscriminate reprobation. - -Mr. DAYTON was heartily for the amendment. He observed that he wanted no -evidence to satisfy him, as to the gentleman not being a member of any -of these societies. If he had been connected with them, he would have -known their principles better than he seems to do. Mr. D. said that many -persons in New Jersey, who had been the most violent against the excise -law were equally so against the insurgents; and though their opinion of -the law itself was unaltered, which they made no scruple of openly -declaring, yet they did not, on that account, hesitate about marching -against the insurgents. They did not suppose that one obnoxious statute -was any reason for overturning the Federal Constitution. The murmurs -against the excise law in New Jersey had been converted into universal -silence, because no man would venture to express his discontent, at the -hazard of being suspected of being a friend to the insurgents. That the -Democratic societies had produced the most mischievous effects in the -western counties there could be no question. Letters had been received -from officers in the army, who were the most respectable characters, and -who, from authentic information, had affirmed the fact. It had been -stated that these people would recriminate upon the House, and it had -even been hinted that their recriminations might affect the PRESIDENT. -_That man_, said Mr. D., is above their censure. He believed that if -their censures had any effect at all, it would be to do the PRESIDENT -honor. - -Mr. NICHOLAS.--When we see an attempt made in this House to reprobate -whole societies, on account of the conduct of individuals, it may truly -be suspected that some of the members of this House have sore backs. The -PRESIDENT has been apprised of the absurdity of making this a -Legislative business. Here Mr. N. read a passage from the PRESIDENT's -Speech, to show, that the notice taken of self-created societies was not -intended for a topic of discussion in that House. The passage was -expressly addressed to every description of citizens: - - "And when in the calm moments of reflection, they shall - have retraced the origin and progress of the insurrection, - let them determine, whether it has been fomented by - combinations of men, who, careless of consequences," &c. - -Was this an address to the two Houses? Did this passage show that the -PRESIDENT wanted them to intermeddle? Were they called upon to give an -opinion? Where could be the pretence for any thing of this sort? The -House have made acts. The Democratic societies reprobate them, and then -the House reprobate the Democratic societies. When you first cut a man's -throat, and thereafter call him a rascal, do you suppose that your -accusation will affect the man's reputation? The House, by passing this -vote of censure, would make themselves a party, and lose a title to -unsuspected confidence. Mr. N. declared, that, for his own part, he -never had any concern with these societies, nor ever to his knowledge -had spent an hour with any person who was a member of them. He rather, -if any thing, despised them. He had always thought them the very worst -advocates for the cause which they espoused; but he had come two hundred -miles to legislate, and not to reprobate private societies. He was not -paid by his constituents for doing business of that sort. The PRESIDENT -knew the business of the House better than to call for any such votes of -censure. It was wrong to condemn societies for particular acts. That -there never should be a Democratical society in America, said Mr. N., I -would give my most hearty consent; but I cannot agree to persecution for -the sake of opinions. With respect either to the propriety or the power -of suppressing them, Mr. N. was in both cases equally of opinion that it -was much better to let them alone. They must stand or fall by the -general sentiments of the people of America. Is it possible that these -societies can exist, for any length of time, when they are of no real -use to the country? No. But this amendment will make the people at large -imagine that they are of consequence. - -Mr. DAYTON said, that these societies had produced the Western -insurrection, and, therefore, the committee were just as well entitled -to institute an inquiry in this case, as formerly regarding the failure -of the expedition of General St. Clair. - -The committee now rose, and reported progress, and had leave to sit -again. - - -TUESDAY, November 25. - -Another member, to wit, JAMES GILLESPIE, from North Carolina, appeared, -and took his seat in the House. - -_The President's Speech._ - -The House again went into Committee of the Whole on the Address of the -PRESIDENT and the amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS, Mr. COBB in the chair. - -Mr. MURRAY said, that he did not altogether like the wording of the -amendment now before the House. He had hoped that some modification of -it would have been prepared by some of its friends; but as none was -offered, and there was a call for the question, he would vote for it -rather than against it. He said, that he had not been personally -attacked by any of the tribunals in question, and no further injured by -their machinations than as he was a citizen of a free Republic in whose -prosperity he felt the closest possible union, and in whose calamities -he of course felt great sympathy. Among the various sources of the late -calamity, the PRESIDENT had traced and designated certain self-created -societies, who had arrogated the management of public opinions and -affairs, and whom he had declared to have been, in his opinion, -instrumental in fomenting the late insurrection. Mr. M. confessed that -he had feared, last winter, lest the disorganizing spirit which had gone -abroad in the shape of resolutions from these societies, would have -produced the effect ascribed to them by the PRESIDENT. The conduct of -the Democratic clubs, or those of them with which he had most -acquaintance, appeared to him to have been instrumental to an event -which threatened destruction to legitimate government. If we believe -this to be the case, Mr. M. knew no motive, duty, or policy, which ought -to restrain us at this period from saying that we believe it, and from -lamenting it. Our declaration will rather hold out a caution to the -thoughtless, than inflict legal penalties upon their follies. It will -present to our fellow-citizens a memorable example of one source of -error and political misfortune, by showing them the danger, which has -already cost above twelve hundred thousand dollars. He could not see any -evil that was to result from an expression of the opinion of the House, -by the proposed amendment. It had not the quality of law; for, if a law -were proposed for the abolition of these societies, he would oppose it. -This amendment to the Address would operate as an advice. It curtails -not the right of a free press, which Mr. M. held to be the luminary of -the public mind. It would tend to excite a judicious and salutary -inquiry among many respecting the just and true limits within which a -virtuous and enlightened well-wisher to our country would think it safe -to exercise this right. Of the inutility and danger of such societies in -this country, he had little doubt. The scene of their birthplace was -well adapted to the wholesome display of their powers. In France, where -a despotism, impregnable to public opinion, had reigned--where no -channel opened a sympathy by representation with the great body of the -nation--those societies were admirably adapted to break down and subvert -the old bulwark of habitual authority. But in America the case was -widely different. Look at the immense body of public functionaries, who -in this country are elected immediately by the people, or by their -electors, in a constitutional mode, and say whether they are not -adequate as functionaries to the public purposes of the country. -Including every description of Legislators, Councils, Governors, Courts, -Jurors, and Sheriffs, there are above twelve thousand. Of these, more -than eleven hundred are actual Legislators, besides the hundred in this -House, and those above stairs. These all act in the States, counties, -townships, and hundreds, in separate but relative circles, so as to -preclude a partial attention to any one scene, to the exclusion of -another. The whole country is full of well-constituted organs of the -people's will. Many of these Legislatures are in session twice a year, -and all of them annually. We might be confused by their immense number, -were they not so admirably dispersed over the Continent, and did they -not move under the guidance of the laws, with the harmony of the -spheres. It would not be easy to organize the nation into a more -multifarious shape. - -The case maintained by Mr. DAYTON yesterday appeared to be strong. He -said that we had inquired into the defeat of St. Clair's army, and so we -might into the causes of the insurrection. To point it out to a people -so enlightened, will be to prevent it in future. If the House agree in -opinion with the PRESIDENT, they will speak their opinion, and do their -duty. This declaration goes to the constituent body, through the -Executive; and, while it gratifies their inquiries in a point of so much -solicitude, it erects a warning beacon. It shows to them the stormy -breakers which lately threatened the public peace with shipwreck, and -invites them to adhere to pilots of their own choosing, and to charts -with which they are acquainted. - -If the PRESIDENT had not thought some of the societies instrumental in -producing the late calamity, they would not have attracted his notice, -nor that of the House. It is because they are believed to have assisted -and fomented the insurrection, that our constituents ought to be warned -against them; and that another necessity for exerting their patriotism -may be saved to those brave men who are at present encountering every -difficulty in the West. These societies are not attended to, because, -however offensive some of their proceedings and doctrines may have -been, yet the rights of the press ought not to be freely handled. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS had no violent predilection for any performance of his -own. He had, therefore, to prevent so much disputing, prepared to -withdraw his motion, provided the committee be willing that he should do -so, and, in the room of this motion, he would read another, for which he -was indebted to a gentleman at his right hand, (Mr. B. BOURNE.) - -The committee consented. The former motion was withdrawn, and the other -was read. This was an echo of that part of the speech of the PRESIDENT -which mentions self-created societies. - -Mr. CHRISTIE then rose. He was sorry to differ from his worthy colleague -(Mr. MURRAY) on the question then before the committee; and he was -doubly sorry to hear that gentleman labor so strenuously to saddle a -public odium on some of the best citizens of the State which he -represented. Mr. C. should not have risen on the present occasion, -although he thought it an important one, had it not been to endeavor to -rescue from public censure a society of gentlemen, who were described in -the present amendment before the committee, as objects of public -opprobrium. Mr. C. alluded to the Republican Society of the town of -Baltimore. If the present amendment took place, that society would be -involved in general and undeserved censure. He would, therefore, inform -the House of what description of men the Republican Society of Baltimore -consisted; and then the committee would be the best judges whether they -ought to be rewarded in the manner in which the present amendment -proposes. They are a society of gentlemen associated together for the -purpose of diffusing political knowledge throughout the State of -Maryland, and to instruct their Representatives in Congress, and the -Legislature of the State, in any point that they think necessary, and -not for the purpose of sowing dissension among the citizens of America, -or of cultivating dislike to the Union, or to the laws. This society -consists of men whose characters are superior to any censure that might -be thrown against them, by the mover of the amendment. But when Congress -are about to cast an odium on a particular society, the members of which -have every respect for that body, and have always inculcated obedience -to the laws of the United States, Mr. C. left it to the committee to -determine whether, if they were themselves in the place of the Baltimore -Society, they would not feel their sensibility materially wounded? Was -not this returning good for evil? He again reminded the committee that -the Republican Society at Baltimore was composed of a band of patriots, -not the fair-weather patriots of the present day, but the patriots of -seventy-five, the men who were not afraid to rally around the American -standard, when that station was almost concluded to be a forlorn hope. -They were men who, with their persons and properties, had assisted to -drive from the soil of America the present lawless disturbers of the -world. Are these the men, asked Mr. C., who ought to have all this mass -of Congressional odium cast upon them? I trust not, sir. I trust, that -if particular gentlemen are illiberal enough to censure them, yet that -this House will never agree to such iniquitous measures. What was the -conduct of this society when the first news of the late insurrection -reached them? Did they not, in the most pointed manner, discountenance -any such proceeding? Did they not refuse to correspond with any society -that aided, or in any manner abetted, the insurrection? They did more. -They offered their personal services to go and help to crush this -commotion in the bud. Mr. C. subjoined that he would venture to say, and -at the same time he spoke within bounds, that nine-tenths of this -society actually took up their muskets and marched into the field for -the above laudable purpose, and that numbers of them still continue -there, and are the friends of peace and order, and not the disorganizers -that the present amendment would make them. Mr. C. appealed to the -candor of the committee to say, whether the Baltimore self-created -Republican Society were the description of men whom the PRESIDENT, in -his Speech, meant to describe. He was sure it was not. Therefore, why -involve in this indiscriminate censure men who have deserved so well of -their country? men who, instead of having odium cast upon them, merit -every praise which the Federal Government can bestow. For these, and -some other reasons, Mr. C. declared that he should vote against the -amendment, and he trusted that he should vote in the majority. - -Mr. MURRAY rose to explain. He did not mean this society. It was the -Philadelphia and Pittsburg societies. Mr. M. was acquainted with this -society, and had the greatest respect for them. As for the members of -the other societies, he was for gibbeting their principles only. - -Mr. RUTHERFORD.--This alarm is owing to an overgrown moneyed system, -with which the people are not entirely satisfied. But the moneyholders -need not be afraid. The people will pay the public debt. Then why -disturb the tranquillity of the people? The PRESIDENT, in his Speech, -points only at combinations over the mountains. As to the character of -the PRESIDENT himself, to praise him was like holding up a rush candle -to let us see the sun. I have known that man, said Mr. R., for these -forty years. I have had the honor of serving under him in the last war, -and of frequently executing his wise and noble orders. The member -declared that this amendment could answer no purpose but that of -disturbing the public peace. He himself represented as respectable a -district as any in Virginia, and he had as good opportunities as any -gentleman in that House to know the temper of Americans. They were -firmly attached to the present Government, and the holders of paper need -not be so much afraid of Democratic societies, for the people, to -preserve the tranquillity, were determined to discharge the public debt, -no matter how it was contracted, and, therefore, it would be much better -not to harass the public mind with amendments like that on the table. - -Mr. GILES said, that he had an amendment to propose that would, he -hoped, meet with the approbation of a certain description of gentlemen -in that committee. His amendment was to strike out the words -"self-created societies," from the amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS, and -insert "the Democratic societies of Philadelphia, New York, and -Pittsburg." Gentlemen could then have some specific object at which they -could say that their vote of censure was levelled; for the general -expression of self-created, comprehended every society of any kind in -the Union. For his own part, he was very far from wanting to censure any -set of men for their political opinions. - -Mr. PARKER seconded the motion for striking out, but he would not -consent to the insertion proposed by Mr. GILES. - -Mr. SEDGWICK thought that the amendment stands better as it is at -present. - -Mr. VENABLE said, that there was a paper on that table (he referred to -the letter from Mr. HAMILTON to the PRESIDENT) which showed that the -combinations in the western counties began their existence at the very -same time with the Excise law itself. It was, therefore, entirely -improper to ascribe them to Democratic societies. Should Government, -said Mr. V., come forward and show their imbecility by censuring what we -cannot punish? The people have a right to think and a right to speak. I -am not afraid to speak my sentiments. I am not afraid of being called a -disorganizer. I am, as much as any gentleman in this committee, a friend -to regular government. - -Mr. DEXTER believed that such societies were, in themselves, wrong, but -he was still not for making laws against them. He had, however, numerous -objections to their conduct. One of these was, that they erected -themselves into a model for the rest of their fellow-citizens to copy. -The great principle of Republicanism was, that the minority should -submit to the will of the majority. But these people have elevated -themselves into tyrants. Such societies are proper in a country where -government is despotic, but it is improper that such societies should -exist in a free country like the United States, and hence, Mr. D. was a -friend to the amendment proposed by Mr. FITZSIMONS. It had been said, -that it was unusual to give opinions of this kind, but, in reality, the -House were in the practice of expressing their sentiments on matters of -that sort, in such addresses as the one now before them. Mr. D. was -decidedly against the amendment of the amendment proposed by Mr. GILES. - -Mr. NICHOLAS.--Gentlemen have brought us into a discussion, and then say -we must decide as they please, in deference to the PRESIDENT. This is -the real ground and foundation of their arguments. But who started this -question? If the gentlemen have brought themselves into a difficulty -with regard to the PRESIDENT, by their participation in proposing votes -of censure which they cannot carry through, they have only to blame -themselves. Is it expected, said Mr. N., that I am to abandon my -independence for the sake of the PRESIDENT? He never intended that we -should take any such notice of his reference to these societies; but if -the popularity of the PRESIDENT has, in the present case, been -committed, let those who have hatched this thing, and who have brought -it forward, answer for the consequences. This whole question turns upon -a matter of fact, which ought to be proved, viz: Have the Democratic -societies been one of the principal causes of the Western insurrection? -This is a matter of fact, or otherwise, and it depends upon direct -evidence. But how do gentlemen handle this question? They digress into -abstract propositions, a thing never heard of before, where a matter of -fact was to be proved. I say, where direct proof is wanted, we see -gentlemen standing on the floor for half an hour together, without -attempting to advance a single fact in support of their assertions; yet -this is the only admissible kind of evidence that the societies are from -their nature unfriendly to the Federal Government. - -Mr. N. then adverted to a remark which had been made, that libels were -daily prosecuted in this country, from which it was inferred that -calumnious attacks on Government were the just objects of reprehension. -Mr. N. said, that the comparison was not fair, because in a case of -libel, the parties accused have a proper opportunity to defend -themselves. Have these people here (the Democratic societies) any such -opportunity? It has been alleged, as a crime against them, that they -have never once published any approbation of any measure of Government. -Mr. N. argued that this arose from the very nature of their institution, -which was to watch the errors of the Legislature and Executive, and -point out to the public what they considered to be mistakes. Faults were -the only kind of facts which they were in quest of. Here Mr. N. drew a -material distinction. If these societies had censured every proceeding -of Government, there would have been the greatest reason for taking some -measures. But what was the case? As to an immense number of the -proceedings of the Executive and Legislature, they had taken no notice -whatever. - -Mr. SEDGWICK thought that the PRESIDENT would have been defective in his -duty, had he omitted to mention what he religiously believed to be true, -viz: that the Democratic societies had in a great measure originated the -late disturbances. It was the indispensable duty of the PRESIDENT to -speak as he had spoken. The present amendment (of Mr. FITZSIMONS) would -have a tendency to plunge these societies into contempt, and to sink -them still farther into abhorrence and detestation. He pronounced them -to be illicit combinations. One gentleman (Mr. NICHOLAS) tells you, that -he despises them most heartily. Another (Mr. LYMAN) says that they begin -to repent. Will the American people perversely propose to shoulder and -bolster up these despised and repenting societies, which are now -tumbling into dust and contempt? Their conduct differed as far from a -fair and honorable investigation, as Christ and Belial. They were men -prowling in the dark. God is my judge, said Mr. S., that I would not -wish to check a fair discussion. - -One gentleman (Mr. MCDOWELL) had told the committee, that the Assumption -and Funding transactions were a cause of public discontent. It has been -the trick of these people to make this assertion. They have said that -the Funding System is a mass of favoritism, for the purpose of erecting -an oppressive aristocracy, and a paper nobility. There is not a man -among them, who is able to write, and who does not know that these -assertions are false. As to the assumption of the debts of individual -States, it has been said that this measure was undertaken for the -purpose of making up a large debt. There was no such thing. Before the -adoption of the new constitution, of which Mr. S. considered the Funding -and Assumption Systems to be essential preliminaries, the credit and -commerce of America were declining or gone. The States were disagreeing -at home, and the American name was disgraced abroad. It was not to be -supposed that every one of the measures of the new Government could -please every body. Among the rest, excise was objected to in both Houses -of Congress; but at last the good sense of the people acquiesced. At -this crisis, a foreign agent (_Genet_) landed at Charleston. On his way -to this city, he was attended by the hosannas of all the disaffected. He -did the utmost mischief that was in his power; and in consequence of his -efforts, Democratic societies sprung up. Mr. S. here gave a particular -account of some proceedings of a society in Virginia, of more than usual -boldness. He quoted some of their expressions relative to a very -illustrious character, the PRESIDENT, and added that perhaps the -individuals who composed this society were in themselves too despicable -to deserve any notice in this place. He did not know whether they were -or not. [Mr. S. was here interrupted by a member from Virginia, and an -explanation ensued.] - -Mr. MCDOWELL rose to make an apology for some words which had escaped -him the day before. He did not expect to have been so smartly handled. -He had been forcibly struck at the time, and had spoken from a momentary -impulse. In substance, however, he adhered to all his former -allegations. He still persisted in believing that the excise laws were -shapen in darkness. He apologized for some part of his heat, from having -seen and suffered so much by despotic government during the last war in -which this gentleman supported the character of a brave and able -officer. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE approved of the amendment; as proposed by Mr. FITZSIMONS. -Constituents made no scruple to tell Representatives of their faults, -and he saw no reason why Representatives might not tell constituents of -theirs? The resolutions of Democratic societies printed in newspapers, -had spirited up the people in the Western counties to resistance. They -had weakly fancied that the American nation would not stand by their -constitution and their PRESIDENT. But for the publication of these -resolutions, there would have been no insurrection. This was a piece of -information which the people of the United States had a right to know. -It was the duty of that House to let them know it. The PRESIDENT had -done his duty. Mr. H. did not consider the amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS -as an indiscriminate censure levelled at these societies; he thought it -only a suitable answer to a part of the PRESIDENT's Speech. - -Mr. PARKER concluded this long debate by the following remarks. He did -not think that Democratic societies were so far to blame as had been -imagined. He suspected that the PRESIDENT himself, for whose character -and services he felt as much respect and gratitude as any man in -America, had been misinformed on this point. It would be absurd to say, -that the Western disturbances originated from the publications of -Democratic societies, if it could be proved to the satisfaction of the -committee, that such disturbances had begun long before any of the -associations alluded to had a being. To prove this position, Mr. P. -desired that the Clerk might read a passage from the letter on that -affair, written by Mr. Hamilton, and which has already been published in -all the newspapers. The Clerk accordingly read a part of the letter, -from which Mr. P. inferred that his inference was incontestable, and he -then stated the absurdity of making the Democratic publications the -origin of a discontent, which existed before them. He was satisfied that -the PRESIDENT did not wish this thing echoed; and that he would entirely -disapprove of the proposed persecution. Mr. P. said, that he had the -honor of being an honorary member of a Democratic society. Personally he -knew nothing of the gentlemen, but he understood that they were -respectable characters; and that they were friends to good order and the -Federal Government, there could be no question, for when the Embargo was -laid last spring, and some vessels had been attempting to get off, these -vigilant citizens armed and embodied themselves, and prevented the -execution of the design. With all his respect for the PRESIDENT, he was -not to give up his opinions for the sake of any man. He was convinced -that all this violent declamation and irritation in the House would do a -great deal of mischief, and would have an effect exactly the reverse of -what was designed by the amendment as it first stood. A gentleman (Mr. -DEXTER) had spoken of town meetings, as the proper vehicles for the -communication of political ideas, and had drawn a comparison between -these and Democratic societies. Mr. P. requested that it might be -noticed, that in the Southern States there neither were nor could be -such things as town meetings, because the population was too thin and -too widely scattered. They were therefore to make the best of it which -they could, and meet and deliberate, no matter where, whenever they -found a convenient opportunity. Mr. P. expressed, in strong terms the -aversion that his constituents would feel to this species of censorship. -He concluded with these words: "They love your Government much, but they -love their independence more." - -The question was then called for on striking out the word "self-created" -from the new amendment of Mr. FITZSIMONS. For the amendment of Mr. -GILES, ayes 47, noes 45. This amendment was therefore adopted. - -Mr. GILES then proposed an amendment, after the words "combination of -men," by adding, "in the four Western counties of Pennsylvania." - -Mr. HARTLEY said, that the gentleman should have added, "and a county in -Virginia." This amendment of Mr. GILES was rejected. - -The committee now rose, and reported the amendments to the House. - - -WEDNESDAY, November 26. - - [The committee having risen, and the question having been - taken in the House, the yeas and nays on the motion to - reinstate the obnoxious words, were:] - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, John Beatty, Elias - Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert - Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, William - J. Dawson, Jonathan Dayton, Samuel Baxter, Thomas - Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas - Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Samuel - Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, James - Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten, John Wilkes - Kittera, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, - Francis Malbone, William Vans Murray, Thomas Scott, - Theodore Sedgwick, John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, - William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Uriah - Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van - Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, John Watts, and - Paine Wingate. - - NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, Thomas Blount, - Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Isaac - Coles, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, Gabriel Duvall, William - Findlay, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Christopher - Greenup, Andrew Gregg, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, - John Heath, Daniel Heister, John Hunter, Matthew Locke, - William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Joseph - McDowell, Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew - Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John - Nicholas, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, - Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, John - Smilie, Israel Smith, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van - Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, and Joseph - Winston. - -And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the -said clause, amended to read as followeth: - - "In tracing the origin and progress of the insurrection, we - can entertain no doubt that certain self-created societies - and combinations of men in the four Western counties of - Pennsylvania, and parts adjacent, careless of consequences, - and disregarding the truth, by disseminating suspicions, - jealousies, and accusations of the Government, have had all - the agency you ascribe to them, in fomenting this daring - outrage against social order and the authority of the - laws:" - -It passed in the negative, nineteen members only rising in the -affirmative. - - -FRIDAY, November 28. - -_Answer to the Address._ - -The Answer, as amended, was then read throughout at the Clerk's table as -follows: - - SIR: The House of Representatives, calling to mind the - blessings enjoyed by the people of the United States, and - especially the happiness of living under constitutions and - laws which rest on their authority alone, could not learn, - with other emotions than those you have expressed, that any - part of our fellow-citizens should have shown themselves - capable of an insurrection. And we learn, with the greatest - concern, that any misrepresentations whatever, of the - Government and its proceedings, either by individuals or - combinations of men, should have been made, and so far - credited as to foment the flagrant outrage which has been - committed on the laws. We feel, with you, the deepest - regret at so painful an occurrence in the annals of our - country. As men regardful of the tender interests of - humanity, we look with grief at scenes which might have - stained our land with civil blood. As lovers of public - order, we lament that it has suffered so flagrant a - violation: as zealous friends of Republican Government, we - deplore every occasion which, in the hands of its enemies, - may be turned into a calumny against it. - - This aspect of the crisis, however, is happily not the only - one which it presents. There is another, which yields all - the consolations which you have drawn from it. It has - demonstrated to the candid world, as well as to the - American people themselves, that the great body of them, - every where, are equally attached to the luminous and vital - principle of our constitution, which enjoins that the will - of the majority shall prevail; that they understand the - indissoluble union between true liberty and regular - government; that they feel their duties no less than they - are watchful over their rights; that they will be as ready, - at all times, to crush licentiousness, as they have been to - defeat usurpation: in a word, that they are capable of - carrying into execution that noble plan of self-government - which they have chosen as the guarantee of their own - happiness, and the asylum for that of all, from every - clime, who may wish to unite their destiny with ours. - - These are the just inferences flowing from the promptitude - with which the summons to the standard of the laws has been - obeyed; and from the sentiments which have been witnessed, - in every description of citizens, in every quarter of the - Union. The spectacle, therefore, when viewed in its true - light, may well be affirmed to display, in equal lustre, - the virtues of the American character, and the value of - Republican Government. All must particularly acknowledge - and applaud the patriotism of that portion of citizens who - have freely sacrificed every thing less dear than the love - of their country, to the meritorious task of defending its - happiness. - - In the part which you have yourself borne through this - delicate and distressing period, we trace the additional - proofs it has afforded of your solicitude for the public - good. Your laudable and successful endeavors to render - lenity in executing the laws conducive to their real - energy, and to convert tumult into order, without the - effusion of blood, form a particular title to the - confidence and praise of your constituents. In all that may - be found necessary, on our part, to complete this - benevolent purpose, and to secure the ministers and friends - of the laws against the remains of danger, our due - co-operation will be afforded. - - The other subjects which you have recommended, or - communicated, and of which several are peculiarly - interesting, will all receive the attention which they - demand. We are deeply impressed with the importance of an - effectual organization of the militia. We rejoice at the - intelligence of the advance and success of the army under - the command of General Wayne, whether we regard it as a - proof of the perseverance, prowess, and superiority of our - troops, or as a happy presage to our military operations - against the hostile Indians, and as a probable prelude to - the establishment of a lasting peace, upon terms of candor, - equity, and good neighborhood. We receive it with the - greater pleasure, as it increases the probability of sooner - restoring a part of the public resources to the desirable - object of reducing the public debt. - - We shall, on this, as on all occasions, be disposed to - adopt any measure which may advance the safety and - prosperity of our country. In nothing can we more cordially - unite with you, than in imploring the Supreme Ruler of - Nations to multiply His blessings on these United States; - to guard our free and happy constitution against every - machination and danger; and to make it the best source of - public happiness, by verifying its character of being the - best safeguard of human rights. - -_Resolved_, That Mr. SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said -address; and that Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SCOTT, be a -committee to wait on the PRESIDENT, to know when and where it will be -convenient for him to receive the same. - -Mr. GILES, from the committee appointed, presented a bill to regulate -the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates, of -the militia of the United States, when called into actual service, and -for other purposes; which was read twice and committed. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Treasurer of the -United States, accompanying his account of receipts and expenditures of -public moneys, from the 1st of April to the 30th of June, 1794; also, -his account of payments and receipts for the War Department, from the -1st of July to the 30th of September, 1794, inclusive; which were read, -and ordered to lie on the table. - -Mr. MADISON, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF -THE UNITED STATES, to know when and where it will be convenient for him -to receive the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both -Houses of Congress, reported that the committee had waited on the -PRESIDENT, who signified to them that it would be convenient to him to -receive the said Address at twelve o'clock to-morrow, at his own house. - - -SATURDAY, November 29. - -The SPEAKER, attended by the House, then withdrew to the house of the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and there presented to him the Address -of this House, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress; to -which the PRESIDENT made the following reply: - - _Gentlemen:_ I anticipated, with confidence, the - concurrence of the House of Representatives in the regret - produced by the insurrection. Every effort ought to be used - to discountenance what has contributed to foment it; and - thus discourage a repetition of like attempts. For, - notwithstanding the consolations which may be drawn from - the issue of this event, it is far better that the artful - approaches to such a situation of things should be checked - by the vigilant and duly admonished patriotism of our - fellow-citizens, than that the evil should increase until - it becomes necessary to crush it by the strength of their - arms. - - I am happy that the part which I have myself borne on this - occasion receives the approbation of your House. For the - discharge of a constitutional duty, it is a sufficient - reward to me to be assured that you will unite in - consummating what remains to be done. - - I feel, also, great satisfaction in learning that the other - subjects which I have communicated or recommended, will - meet with due attention; that you are deeply impressed with - the importance of an effectual organization of the militia; - and that the advance and success of the army under the - command of General Wayne is regarded by you, no less than - myself, as a proof of the perseverance, prowess, and - superiority of our troops. G. WASHINGTON. - - -TUESDAY, December 2. - -The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the -Treasury, stating his intention of resigning his office on the last day -of January next, and which he now communicates, in order that an -opportunity may be given, previous to that event, to institute any -further proceedings which may be contemplated, if any there be, in -consequence of the inquiry during the last session, into the state of -the Treasury Department; which was read, and ordered to lie on the -table.[55] - - -THURSDAY, December 4. - -_Thanks to General Wayne._ - -Mr. W. SMITH wished to make his promised motion, which he prefaced by -observing that he had varied it at the request of several gentlemen. In -the original motion, he had particularly noticed the diligence of the -General in disciplining his army to the nature of the service in which -they were engaged, and his fortitude and perseverance in encountering -the difficulties which opposed his march through a wilderness. - -Though he and many others were ready to acknowledge in the fullest -manner the merits of the General in those important particulars, yet as -they were not matters of general notoriety, and as unanimity on an -occasion like the present was extremely desirable, he had now confined -the motion to the brilliant action of the 20th August. - -Mr. SMITH concluded with saying, that as he had no doubt the services of -the army had made the same impression on the House as they had on him, -he trusted the motion he was about to make would be honored with a -unanimous vote. He then moved the three resolutions, as follow: - - _Resolved_, That the thanks of this House he given to Major - General Wayne for the good conduct and bravery displayed by - him in the action of the 20th August last with the Indians. - - _Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be - given to the brave officers and soldiers of the legion - under the orders of Major General Wayne, for their - patience, fortitude, and bravery. - - _Resolved_, That the thanks of this House be given to Major - General Scott, and to the gallant mounted volunteers from - the State of Kentucky, who have served their country in the - field during the late campaign, under the orders of Major - General Wayne, for their zeal, bravery, and good conduct. - -Mr. GILES foresaw many bad consequences that might ensue from the -practice of giving opinions of men. One part of the House might be for a -vote of thanks, and the other against it. He should vote for the -proposition, but wished that some mode might be adopted for expressing -the general opinion of the House against the practice. - -Mr. KITTERA was for restoring the clause respecting the vigilance of -General Wayne in attending to the discipline of his troops. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE hoped that the resolutions would not be adopted. He should -go farther than the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) and vote against -them. The House in their answer to the PRESIDENT, had expressed their -approbation, and that was enough. It was not the business of that House, -but of the Executive, to express such things. Mr. H. had voted most -cordially for that part of the Address respecting the Western army. The -Answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT would always afford a good -opportunity of conveying these kind of matters. It would immediately -become necessary to give thanks in every case; and not to give them will -be regarded as an implied censure. He trusted that the gentleman would -withdraw his motion, and that the House in this way would get rid of -it. He had, and he repeated it again, a high sense of the merit of the -officers and soldiers of the army under General Wayne, but he had said -so already in the Address to the PRESIDENT. It had been urged, as a -precedent for this measure, that it was usual to thank the Speaker. This -was a mere ceremony. He wished that it had never come into practice, but -since it had been so, he should always agree to the vote of thanks. - -Mr. MURRAY thought that we might trust that the House would always have -too much prudence to abuse their thanks, by giving them improperly. By -way of precedent Mr. M. read a vote of the State of Virginia, thanking -Governor Lee for his conduct in the Western insurrection. - -Mr. NICHOLAS approved highly of the conduct of the troops, but it was -only an act of duty. If we send soldiers against the Indians, it is -supposed that they will stand to their posts, otherwise the Government -cannot be supported even for a month. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE saw no business which the House had with the proceedings -in the State of Virginia. It had been hinted that the army under General -Wayne might feel disagreeably, if the resolution should be rejected. -With that Mr. H. had no business. He acted on principles without -regarding the feelings of individuals. - -Mr. W. SMITH agreed with gentlemen that the principal object of the -House was to legislate; but it did not follow that they were to be -confined merely to legislation. Every Legislative body exercised the -right of opinion in cases where no act was to follow. This House has -frequently exercised it: the answers to the PRESIDENT's Speech; the -answer to the King of the French on his acceptance of the Constitution -of ninety-one; the opinion of the House on the merits of that -constitution; the vote respecting Benjamin Franklin; the vote of last -session in reply to a letter from the Committee of Public Safety of -France; the votes of thanks to the Speakers, were precedents on the -journals which refuted a contrary doctrine. It had been said that the -latter case was a mere matter of form. Mr. S. thought differently, and -if ever he was in that House when a vote of thanks should be proposed to -a Speaker who had no claim to it, he should feel it his duty to oppose -it. Gentlemen apprehended that this practice might lead to innumerable -difficulties hereafter. But every House would exercise its judgment and -discretion. Members would not be so rash as to propose the thanks of the -House where serious opposition was expected, nor would the thanks be -voted unless well merited. He was unwilling as any member to make the -thanks of the House too cheap; but all must confess that if ever there -was an occasion where they were properly called for, this was one. To -deny the right or expediency of the practice was in fact to strip the -House of one of its most agreeable functions, that of expressing its -gratitude. - -It had been advanced as an objection, that the two Houses might differ; -one might vote thanks and the other censure, in the same case; but that -might happen in other cases where the propriety of expressing an opinion -was admitted; in answering the PRESIDENT's Speech in the State -Legislatures, where thanks were frequently voted, the two branches might -differ; that was never deemed an objection to the practice; each House -expressed its individual opinion. - -Mr. SMITH said, if the House had been sitting in September last when the -account arrived of this victory, would the members have then felt as -coldly as they now do? No: he was convinced that in the moment of joy -and gratitude, they would have unanimously voted thanks to the army -without the least hesitation; but they have since had time to cool, and -the impression is worn away. - -Gentlemen should consider the hard services of that army; how badly paid -they were; the nature of the country they were in; and then determine -whether the brilliant action of the 20th August is to go unrewarded? To -appreciate truly the merits of that army in obtaining so signal a -victory, let the House reflect on the consequences of a defeat: the army -disbanded and broken up; the frontiers exposed to the ferocious savages; -the combination of the tribes more cemented and formidable; an -expensive, long, and bloody war. What is now our prospect? The frontiers -protected; the combination of the tribes dissolved, and peace with them -all a probable event. - -Before, therefore, the motion which he had made could be got rid of, it -was incumbent on the gentlemen on the other side to show, either that it -was improper in any case whatever to pass a vote of thanks, or that this -was not a case entitled to them; to do the first they must establish, in -the face of precedents innumerable, a doctrine destructive of one of the -most amiable privileges of the House; to do the last, they must express -a sentiment which would, he was persuaded, be repugnant to the -sentiments of all their constituents, for throughout the United States -there was but one opinion on this subject, and that was in unison with -the motion. Having made the motion after due deliberation, he certainly -should not withdraw it; but would submit it to the good sense of the -House. - -Mr. COIT moved the previous question. He thought the practice of -dangerous consequence. It might produce much uncomfortable proceeding in -that House. He was seconded by a number of members. - -Mr. PARKER felt the highest esteem for the services of the Western army. -He was intimate both with General Wayne and General Scott; but he -disapproved of the practice upon principle. It was wrong in Mr. MURRAY -to quote the proceedings in the Legislature of Virginia, where the -Governor was in authority a mere cipher, because the two cases did not -apply. The Federal Government was on a quite different footing, a -mixture of monarchy, of aristocracy, and of democracy. The PRESIDENT -represented the monarchical part. It was his business to give thanks, if -requisite. If he himself was an officer in that army, Mr. P. said that -he should be satisfied by the first thanks, those in the answer to the -PRESIDENT. He would be hurt by the second as unconstitutional. What if, -in the mean time, General Wayne and his army may have committed some -error that requires an inquiry, and the House are to go into it with -this vote of thanks staring them in their face! It had been said by Mr. -SMITH, that if we had been sitting in September, when this news arrived, -a vote of thanks would have been passed immediately and unanimously. I -believe no such thing (said Mr. P.) We should have recommended such a -step to the PRESIDENT. - -Mr. GILES said, that if there ever could have been any doubt as to the -impropriety of the resolution, that was now removed, (alluding to the -speech of Mr. PARKER.) He thought that the gentleman (Mr. COIT) who -moved the previous question had acted from the best motives. Two -gentlemen (Mr. GILES referred to Mr. SEDGWICK and Mr. AMES) had -recommended an appeal to _feeling_. We are sent here to reason. A -gentleman (Mr. SEDGWICK) says that he has feelings which he cannot -express. Let him strive to express them. It is not expected that a -member is to express all that he may feel on every subject. - -Mr. MURRAY said he thought the present resolution proper, -unexceptionable, and as the fate of this question would have an effect -on the motion for thanks to the militia, which he brought forward -yesterday, he hoped it would succeed, and that its mover (Mr. SMITH, of -South Carolina) would not withdraw it. Gentlemen who are against the -vote have talked of precedent. If example would serve their feelings -with a stimulus, he would take the liberty of calling their attention to -a page he had in his hand, in which they would find that some of our -constituents have got the start of us, for the House of Delegates of -Virginia had very properly considered the conduct of their Governor (Mr. -LEE) in a light which merited their thanks for his acceptance of the -command of his fellow-citizens against the insurgents. Mr. M. read the -vote from a newspaper, which was a unanimous one. He said he considered -this circumstance as extremely auspicious to both votes. - -He said he had no objection to consider the practice as founded in -principles which would bear examination. He thought it more necessary in -the administration of our Government--the great basis of which was -public opinion--than in that of any other which he had read or heard of. -Here our theories have made a bold appeal to the reason and feelings of -our fellow-citizens. Neither titles, nor hereditary honors, nor crosses, -nor ribbons, nor stars, nor garters, are permitted or endurable. Neither -would they be accepted here were they offered. We had but two ways, as -far as his knowledge then served him, of rewarding or acknowledging -great displays of public virtue. One way is by pay in money; the other -by thanks expressed by vote, or presented and perpetuated in some -memorial, as in a medal. The first is unequal; as the fortunes of men -differ, so would such reward not be equally valuable to all its objects; -and were it practicable to apportion this reward agreeably to the -fortunes of men, there is a something ill-assorted in it with the idea -of honorable ambition; nor did he think there was any good man who had a -spark of what is called sentiment in his bosom, who would not say the -reward was not only lame for want of uniformity, but defective in point -of taste in its species. He believed much in the sense of duty as a -motive to good and reasonable services, and that an enlightened mind -would feel the close alliance between interest and duty; but he held -reward to be essential, politically considered, to the practice of great -virtue, taking men as you find them. Not that money can be an adequate -reward; it was therefore that he wished to see a style of acknowledgment -derived both from the genius of the Government and congenial with the -passions which work on the side of virtue--a mode as far removed from -mere avarice as it was nearly associated to the movements of the most -elevated minds. He readily yielded his belief that the gentlemen who -were unwilling to adopt the practice fully admitted the merits to which -they did not think it expedient to give a vote of thanks; but the -precedent, founded expressly on the principle, that in no case of the -greatest events are we to give thanks to the agents in them, will -absolutely strip the Government of the only power its constitution -admits of conferring deserved distinction. He thought that public -gratitude was a great fund, which if judiciously and delicately -economized, might be rendered a source of great and good actions. It is -an honor both to the nation that can feel and express it, and to those -who receive it. He did not think it ought to be lightly drawn on, and -hoped a line which it was more easy to conceive than draw, would be -adopted by the House to save the Legislature from those perilous -occasions which would lessen its value, and that no member would ever -move a vote of thanks but upon the happening of some event so strikingly -great and useful as to carry but one opinion. The two events designated -at present (for he saw both votes were to have one fate) were great, -highly interesting, and carried but one opinion. The army under General -Wayne had gained a brilliant victory. It was, he believed, the first -great victory that had attended the arms of the United States since the -adoption of the constitution. That army merited the thanks of their -country, and we may say so. They had not only gained victory and fame, -but had earned them in a solitude where the voice of fame could not be -heard; in a profound wilderness, where neither the soothings of just -ambition can reach them, nor the smiles of social and civilized life can -comfort them after their severe labors. - -The militia, both officers and men, in "quelling the insurrection," had -displayed the wisdom and virtue which the constitution had anticipated; -had eminently deserved the most public testimony to their good conduct. -Shall we, as we certainly feel this to be true, be deterred from -expressing what we feel, because the folly of a future moment may -possibly betray us into an undue multiplication of thanks, or because we -may be harassed by a fatiguing succession of calls upon our gratitude? -There could be little fear that great events would crowd too fast upon -our feelings, and take up our time by applause, and he believed his -constituents would readily admit the importance of two such events as -some excuse for the time we consume in celebrating them. - -In favor of the principle, we are supported by the example of the old -Congress, by the practice of all nations, and by the known character of -human nature in all cases and everywhere. The ancients and the moderns, -by a variety of inventions and of policy, analogous to our object, -endeavored to enlist all the passions in the public service. The old -Congress understood the springs that work in great events, and though -there was in the glorious revolution which they guided, an ardor in the -public mind that needed little aid, they did not disdain an appeal to -the just pride and ambition of the individual; that the motives to -public virtue might be multiplied, they in many instances took care that -great events and services should be attended by some small but -inestimable memorial. - -Mr. AMES.--The apprehensions of the House have been attempted to be -alarmed, as if they were pushed to adopt hastily and unguardedly some -dangerous new principle. The practice of all public bodies, without -exception, has been to express their approbation of distinguished public -services. Instead of establishing a new principle, the attempt is now -made to induce us to depart from an old one. Nay, the objection taken -altogether is still more inconsistent and singular, for it is urged, the -answer of the House to the PRESIDENT's Speech has already expressed our -approbation of the conduct of General Wayne and his army. It is, say -they, superfluous to express it again. The argument opposed to the vote -of thanks stands thus: It is a dangerous new principle, without a -precedent, and without any just authority from the constitution, to -thank the army; for, the objectors add, we have in the answer to the -Speech expressed all that is contained in the motion. It is unusual to -quote precedent, and our own recent conduct, to prove a motion -unprecedented, and to prove a measure new and dangerous because it has -been adopted without question or apprehension heretofore. - -It is simply a question of mere propriety; and is it a novelty, is it -any thing to alarm the caution of the House, that such questions are -always to be decided by feeling? What but the sense of propriety induces -me to perform to others the nameless and arbitrary duties, and to -receive from others the rights which the civilities and refinements of -life have erected into laws? In cases of a more serious kind, is not -sentiment the only prompt and enlightened guide of our conduct? If I -receive a favor, what but the sentiment of gratitude ought to direct me -in my acknowledgments? Shall I go to my benefactor and say, Sir, I act -coolly and carefully; I will examine all the circumstances of this -transaction, and if upon the whole I find some cause of gratitude, I -will thank you. Is this gratitude or insult? The man who affects to hold -his feelings, and his best feelings back for this cold-blooded process -of reasoning, has none. He deceives himself, and attempts to deceive -others, if he pretends to reason up or to reason down the impressions -which actions worthy of gratitude and admiration make upon his heart. -Was it necessary to wait for the joy and exultation which the news of -the victory of General Wayne instantly inspired, till we could proceed -with all due phlegm and caution to analyze it? The gentleman from -Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) has not even yet received the impressions which -are so natural and so nearly universal; for he has insisted that the -army has only done its duty, and therefore it is improper to express our -thanks. Indeed, it has done its duty, but in a manner the most splendid, -the most worthy of admiration and thanks. That gentleman has also -expressed his doubts of the very important nature of the victory, and -one would suppose it was thought by many a very trivial advantage that -is gained. It is such an one, however, as has humbled a victorious foe; -as has avenged the slaughter of two armies; as gives us the reasonable -prospect of a speedy peace. Can we desire any thing more ardently than a -termination of the Indian war? - -A soldier, of all men, looks to this kind of recompense for his -services; and surely, to look to the approbation and applause of his -country is one means of keeping alive the sentiments of citizenship, -which ought not to be suffered to expire even in a camp. Shall we make -it an excuse for refusing to pass this vote, that we establish the -principle of thanking nobody? Is not this, as a principle, as novel, as -improper, as that which alarms our opponents? And shall we establish it -as a principle against the known practice of other assemblies and of -this, and against the intrinsic propriety of the case, merely because we -think our discretion will not be firm enough in future to prevent the -abuse of the practice? Scarcely any abuse could have a worse influence -than the refusal to adopt this vote, because, should the negative -prevail, what would the army believe? Would they not say, a vote of -thanks has been rejected? It is said we have not done much, and what we -have done is merely our duty, for which we receive wages? - -The debate has taken such a turn, that I confess I could have wished the -motion had not been made. For the most awkward and ridiculous thing in -the world is to express our gratitude lothly. But at least it offers to -those who fear that votes of thanks will be too frequent, some security -against their apprehensions. Would any man risk the feelings and -character of his friend by an attempt to force a vote of thanks by a -bare majority through the House? No, an ingenuous mind will shrink from -this gross reward. If there is any force in the precedent it is feared -we are now making, it will operate more to deter from than to invite the -repetition. - -Mr. DEARBORN was in favor of the original motion. In addition to some -remarks relative to the Republicanism of the idea of the Representatives -of the people thanking the armies of the people for their prowess and -victories, he compared the argument against the resolutions on the score -of abuse to a miser's excusing himself from the practice of charity, -lest he should bestow it on unworthy objects. - -Mr. RUTHERFORD was opposed to the previous question. He hoped the -resolution of thanks would pass without a dissenting voice. - -The previous question was now called for, by five members, viz: "Shall -the main question to agree to the said resolution, be now put?" And - -On the previous question, "Shall the said main question be now put?" it -was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 52, nays 36. - -And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the -said resolution, it was - -_Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be given to the -brave officers and soldiers of the legion under the orders of Major -General Wayne, for their patience, fortitude, and bravery. - -_Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be given to Major -General Scott, and to the gallant mounted volunteers from the State of -Kentucky, who have served their country in the field, during the late -campaign, under the orders of Major General Wayne, for their zeal, -bravery, and good conduct. - -_Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be requested to -transmit the foregoing resolutions; and that Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr. -MURRAY be appointed a committee to wait on the PRESIDENT therewith. - -On motion of Mr. MURRAY, - -_Resolved, unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be given to the -gallant officers and privates of the militia of the States of New -Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, who, on the late call of -the PRESIDENT, rallied round the standard of the laws, and, in the -prompt and severe services which they encountered, bore the most -illustrious testimony to the value of the constitution, and the -blessings of internal peace and order; and that the PRESIDENT be -requested to communicate the above vote of thanks in such manner as he -may judge most acceptable to the patriotic citizens who are its objects. - -_Ordered_, That Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr. MURRAY be appointed a -committee to wait on the PRESIDENT with the foregoing resolution. - - -TUESDAY, December 9. - -_The Mint._ - -The House then took up the motion of Mr. COIT, relative to the Mint. The -letter of Mr. Rittenhouse, referred to yesterday, was again read. - -Mr. BOUDINOT drew the attention of the House for some time, by a series -of the most interesting observations. He went to the Bank of the United -States to inquire for cents. He was told that there were none to be had, -because the Bank could not get them from the Mint. He then went to the -Mint, where he was informed that cents were not coined faster because -the officers of the Mint did not know where to get them vented! He said -that this Mint cost twenty-four thousand dollars per annum, and every -cent coined there cost the public several cents, though he could not -exactly tell how many. In New Jersey far more cents had been coined in a -few months than had ever been coined altogether at the Mint of the -United States, and this had been done at one-fortieth part of the -expense which the Mint of the United States has cost. - -Several other members adverted to the prodigious inconvenience which is -felt all over the Union for want of copper coin; and it appeared to -excite some curiosity, on what foundation the officers of the Mint said -that they could not get their cents vented. It was remarked by Mr. W. -SMITH that, except as to Philadelphia, the Mint is of little or no use -whatever. The cents given out never go farther than the city. - -A committee of three members were appointed to examine and report on the -state of the Mint, and what means may be used to render the institution -more beneficial to the United States. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 10. - -An engrossed bill making appropriations for the support of Government, -for the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, was read the -third time, and passed. - - -MONDAY, December 15. - -Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, JOHN PAGE; and from North -Carolina, BENJAMIN WILLIAMS, appeared, and took their seats in the -House. - - -TUESDAY, December 16. - -_Pennsylvania Insurgents._ - -It was then moved and seconded that the House should go into a -committee, on the report of the select committee, on that part of the -PRESIDENT's Speech which recommended compensation to the sufferers by -the insurgents in the Western counties. The House accordingly went into -a committee, Mr. COBB in the chair, and the report was read. - -In the clause for making compensation to officers of Government, and -other citizens, Mr. NICHOLAS was for striking out the three last words, -and restricting indemnification to the officers of Government, as the -additional words would make room for a set of claims which never could -be satisfied or put to an end. It is now ascertained that the majority -of the people of the four western counties have always been in favor of -Government; but, since it is so, they ought to have suppressed the -insurrection, and saved the expense of sending an army into that -country. But as they did not do so, Mr. N. did not see what claim they -had for compensation any more than the sufferers in the war with -Britain. - -Mr. FINDLAY thought that sound policy required an indemnification to the -sufferers. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE was in favor of the report of the committee as it stood. -The whole affair was but a trifle. He understood that the damages done -by the rioters did not altogether exceed twenty thousand dollars; and -that three-fourths of this sum was for losses sustained by officers of -the revenue. The rest of the account was for persons who had fought in -defence of the officers or who had lodged and protected them. He -observed that the whole of the select committee were of one mind upon -the subject, and agreed in considering the other citizens as equally -entitled to indemnification with the officers themselves. - -Mr. NICHOLAS was still against the resolutions as originally worded. He -did not see any proof of extraordinary attachment on the part of the -claimants, nor any peculiar call on the justice of the House in this -particular case. - -Mr. W. SMITH said, that one man had his whole property burned for -having, at the hazard of his life, assisted in attempting to defend the -house of the Inspector General. A second received the same treatment for -having lodged an excise officer; and a third, because he had -antecedently been one himself, though he had quitted his employment -before the riots began. Mr. S. urged that these were certainly peculiar -and pressing cases, and that it would be highly impolitic not to protect -such people. - -Mr. GILBERT hoped that there would be no discrimination, but that all -the sufferers would be alike reimbursed. - -Mr. BOUDINOT proposed a kind of compromise between the original -resolution and the amendment by Mr. NICHOLAS. He proposed that the -clause should read thus: "officers of the revenue, and other citizens -aiding and assisting them." He was willing to indemnify persons who had -actually suffered in defence of Government, but not other persons who -might accidentally have been injured by the rioters. - -Mr. DAYTON was of opinion that some restriction of this sort was -necessary. Citizens were in duty bound to support Government, but the -latter was not in all cases bound to indemnify their losses. Let any -person go through any part of the country wherever British soldiers had -marched, and he would find thousands and tens of thousands of people -whose property had been utterly destroyed by the wanton barbarity of -these troops. Go to another part of the country and you will find people -who suffered very considerably by the American soldiers, when Government -did not give them an ounce of bread for pounds that they should have -had. It was not possible to make satisfaction to all these people. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said it was extremely disagreeable to attempt detaining the -committee with this subject, to which they discovered such general -inattention, that he did not know if it had ever been equalled in any -popular assembly before. He again adverted to an argument which he had -used on a former day, viz: that when a private person, at the risk of -his property and his life, comes forward to support the execution of the -laws, his service was much more meritorious, and demonstrated a much -greater degree of patriotism than that of a revenue officer who was paid -for his share of the business. He inferred that the sufferers by the -Western rioters should all be equally indemnified. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE repeated some of his former reasons for wishing to -discharge the whole claims. He was therefore against the qualified -amendment of Mr. BOUDINOT. - -Mr. SWIFT was against the amendment of Mr. BOUDINOT, because he was -against giving, at present, any thing at all. He would suffer the -persons who have sustained injury from these rioters and trespassers to -prosecute them at law. If they cannot get any retribution in that way, -then, and not sooner, you may begin to consider upon the propriety of -giving any compensation; but till the parties aggrieved have done their -utmost in that way, he would have no steps whatever taken of the nature -proposed. It had been alleged that the House might advance money in the -mean time to the sufferers, and leave them to their actions against the -rioters. But if you pay a man for his damages, what security is there -that he will follow up his suit; or, is it not evident that such -previous compensation will greatly damp his ardor? Mr. S. said, that if -previous notice were given of Government being ready to pay the damages, -in case they could not be recovered before a court of law, there -certainly never would be found a jury to bring a verdict against a -private person. For this reason Mr. S. was entirely against the -resolution at this time. What he might do hereafter, he would not say. -There was only one case wherein he could be induced to advance money. If -any of these persons could prove that they had been reduced by the -rioters to such poverty that they were unable to prosecute their claims -in a court of law, it might then perhaps be expedient to advance for -them the expenses of the suit. But the interposition of the House at -this period would affect the claims very greatly, and thus confer on the -rioters themselves a favor which Mr. S. was very unwilling to bestow, as -he would wish them prosecuted to the utmost. Before the meeting of next -Congress, it might be ascertained what could be made of these -prosecutions, and then, and not till then, Mr. S. would think it proper -to enter on the discussion suggested by the report of the select -committee. - -Mr. DEXTER drew a distinction between persons suffering by an open -enemy, whose approaches they could not avoid, and those who suffer -voluntarily. The claim for compensation was complete, and we should do -the parties injustice if they did not receive full satisfaction. - -Mr. BOUDINOT withdrew his amendment, under the idea that the particular -cases would hereafter come before the House. The question therefore -reverted to its former shape, shall the words "and other citizens" be -struck out. - -Mr. DAYTON, in opposition to Mr. DEXTER, considered the Government of -the United States as more justly bound to make reparation to the people -who suffered by the robberies and conflagrations perpetrated by British -soldiers than to compensate the sufferers in the four Western counties; -for those whose houses were burned, and whose property was destroyed by -the British, had no quarter to which they could look for relief except -to their own Government. The people to the Westward, on the contrary, -had it in their power to prosecute the rioters, who were well able to -pay them. Mr. DEXTER had said that the losses of the persons ruined by -the British were upon record. Perhaps, said Mr. DAYTON, they will always -be on record; but nobody supposes that we shall ever indemnify these -losses. He thought it prudent for the present to restrict relief to the -officers of Government alone. - -The question was about to be put, on the amendment proposed by Mr. -NICHOLAS to the first resolution in the report of the select committee, -when Mr. SCOTT rose. He said, that if there had been a proposal devised -to weaken the hands of Government in the four Western counties, there -was no one thing which could have effected that point so completely as -the striking out of these three words, "and other citizens." If -gentlemen would only reflect for a moment, he would ask them how they -thought it possible that any civil officer, after the adoption of such -an amendment, would ever be able to raise a posse in that part of the -country? Who would hereafter venture to defend the life of an excise -officer, when the world has been told, that individuals do it at their -own hazard, and cannot look to Government for any compensation? Who will -hereafter admit an excise officer into his house, if that house may, -with impunity, be burned about his ears? As soon as this amendment has -gone abroad, every body, instead of assisting the officers of the -revenue, will strive to keep out of their way, and have nothing to do -with them. If there never had been any thing said about making a -compensation to other citizens, perhaps there might have been little -harm, or at least there would have been much less harm by forbearing to -give them relief. But when the subject has been fairly brought forward -by the PRESIDENT in his Speech, and when it had been debated at full -length in this House, when so much notice had been attracted, and so -many hopes have been thrown out, to give, in the face of all this, a -direct negative, would be the most impolitic step that could possibly be -thought of. - -The committee then agreed to reject the amendment, and divided on the -first resolution as it originally stood in the report of the select -committee--yeas 46, nays 37. - -The second resolution was then put for enabling the PRESIDENT to draw -the sum of ---- dollars for the relief of the sufferers--yeas 41, nays -37. - -Mr. SMITH then said, that seventeen thousand dollars had been mentioned -in the committee as sufficient to pay the whole damages. He proposed to -fill up the blank with eight or ten thousand dollars, on account, till -they should see what was to be the final amount of the claims. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE and Mr. KITTERA both objected to this proposal. The -committee rose. The Chairman reported that the committee had agreed to -the report of the select committee without any amendment. The House were -about to take up the report, when Mr. SEDGWICK said, that he was really -concerned at thinking that there could have been any division at all -about such a thing. He still hoped that a measure might be adopted which -would produce unanimity on the subject, and would have a much better -effect than such a division. - -The bill appropriating one million one hundred and twenty-two thousand -five hundred and sixty-nine dollars and one cent for the expenses of the -militia in the Western expedition, was read a first and second time, and -referred to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 17. - -_Pennsylvania Insurgents._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the report of the select -committee on that part of the PRESIDENT's Speech respecting compensation -to the sufferers by insurgents in the Western counties in Pennsylvania. -When the first of the two resolutions in the report was read, Mr. SWIFT -objected to the granting of immediate indemnification, on much the same -ground as he adopted yesterday in the Committee of the Whole. He -inquired how a person, with a compensation from that House in his -pocket, could appear in a Court of Justice to prosecute a rioter for -damages, when the Judge, the jurors, and every one in Court knew he had -been indemnified? He enlarged, at some length, on the great pity that it -would be to let those rioters and rebels escape so; and, after they had -cost Government above a million of dollars, that they should not be -obliged to pay these sixteen or twenty thousand. - -Mr. LYMAN hoped that the House would give the money, and have done with -the business. - -Mr. NICHOLAS.--The more he considered this question, he was the more -convinced that the House are involving themselves in embarrassment. Are -you not told (said he, alluding to what had been urged by Mr. SWIFT) -that, by paying these claims in the first instance, you are cutting the -sinews of civil process? In any future commotion of this kind a person -who has lodged an exciseman may have his house burnt from private spite -against him, and not because he interfered in favor of a revenue -officer. Then you are bound, by this precedent, to indemnify him; and -how can you distinguish what was the real motive to that outrage? He -believed it impossible ever to bring Government to such a state of -perfection as that all losses suffered in defence of it should be -indemnified at its charge. Where is the difference between this case and -that of indemnifying the losses at sea by the British? Yet that proposal -was rejected. Where is the gentleman who will say that he believes -people will put themselves to the trouble of prosecuting, when they know -that the money, if recovered, must go into your pockets again? Let us -put the case, that a jury in the Western counties, where these points -must be tried, shall find any of these people entitled to less than what -you have bestowed upon them? Can you then recover the money back again? -It is said that this resolution embraces but a few instances, and these -of the most meritorious kind; but, in reality, it includes all citizens -who have suffered. What will this comprehend, or, rather, what will it -not comprehend? He supposed that the design was that the commissioners -appointed by the PRESIDENT for that effect should be sent into the -Western counties to ascertain the damages. Mr. N. concluded by declaring -that nothing which he had heard could induce him to go to the extent -proposed; and, by giving money at present, the prosecutions would all -come to nothing. - -Mr. MURRAY hoped the first resolution would succeed. He really thought -that the reasoning of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) would -extend to the exclusion of General Neville. - -Mr. MADISON remarked, that great respect was due to this proposition, -both on account of the interesting occasion that produced it, and of the -quarter from whence it came. But the more he revolved the subject in his -mind, the more he was convinced that great circumspection was requisite, -and that the House, for many reasons, ought to take as much time in -deliberating upon what they ought to do as the nature of the subject -will admit. He recommended the proposal of some gentlemen to let the -affair lie over to next session. - -It is no doubt proper to encourage a spirit for suppressing -insurrections, and this measure is certainly calculated to promote that -spirit. But, in his judgment, Mr. M. feared that it would likewise -encourage insurrections. A great body of people were commonly engaged in -such disturbances who were not worth hanging, and to whom an established -Government usually held out an amnesty. By this means great multitudes -came in, and received pardon before the operations of chastisement -began. The mob, therefore, would in this case reason thus: As a crowd, -we have a good chance to escape the gallows. Let us then plunder as fast -as possible, because Government will disburse the loss, and we shall not -be forced to disgorge our booty. Mr. M. thought that speculations of -this kind might be entertained by future insurgents, if the House were -instantly to vote a complete indemnification to the sufferers. Mr. M. -held the highest respect for the arguments and feelings of gentlemen who -espoused the other side of the question. What he himself had just now -suggested, he did not regard as decisive considerations, but yet as -considerations of weight. His own impression was to let the matter lie -over till the next session, and then those who had done their best in -prosecuting would come forward to that House to claim compensation under -the most auspicious circumstances, and all which they shall have -recovered will be saved to the State. - -Mr. BOUDINOT differed in some degree from the gentleman who spoke last. -He was for doing something at present, though not so much as was implied -in the first resolution. He recapitulated the danger that would arise -from slackening the efforts of people to prosecute the rioters. He -entirely dissented from the principle laid down by some gentlemen, that -Government was in all cases bound to indemnify the losses sustained by -its citizens from foreign or domestic outrage. In the war with Britain -there were great numbers of people who chose rather to fight it out to -the last, and permit their houses to be burnt by the British troops, -than accept of terms which they might have obtained. Mr. B. again -proposed the amendment which he laid yesterday before the committee, -viz: that after the words "and other citizens," there should be -inserted, "personally aiding and assisting them." This he thought -sufficient in the mean time. - -Mr. HEATH declared himself against the resolution as unsound policy. He -feared that it may be an encouragement to future mischief. When an -officer of the revenue finds that he is to be so easily paid--to be paid -a double value for the burning of his house--will not this slacken his -ardor in defence of it? Who has not heard of the rebellion of _Shays_, -where a great deal of property was destroyed? People there began at the -right end of the business. Lawsuits were commenced against the rebels, -and damages were recovered. Pray, would it not be a proper bar to the -recovery of damages in a court of law to say Government has paid you? -Will not these people who suffered by the Tories in the last war come -next, with open mouths, and demand indemnity? We shall next have those -citizens who lately suffered by the pirates of Britain hastening to -demand compensation. Mr. H. considered this as the most important -question which had come before Congress during the present session. He -concluded by saying that he would bear his testimony against this -resolution. - -Mr. CARNES was of the same opinion. Mr. MURRAY had said that it would be -impossible to find a jury in the Western counties who would give honest -damages against the rioters, because almost every body was on their -side, and there would be no possibility of finding a jury who would pass -an equitable verdict, unless recourse was had to the odious and -execrable practice of packing juries. This remedy was worse than the -disease; and from this Mr. MURRAY inferred the futility of compelling -the sufferers to wait for the result of hopeless prosecutions, and the -propriety of immediately paying the damages. Mr. CARNES asked the -gentleman whether his knowledge as a lawyer did not inform him that an -upright jury might be selected without having recourse to the infamous -expedient of packing? When a jury were chosen, the prosecutors would be -at liberty to except against them; and if they were either men of bad -characters, or in any shape connected with the rioters, these exceptions -would be admitted, and this process would go on till a respectable jury -could be chosen. This was quite distinct from any thing like packing. He -considered this explanation as a satisfactory answer to the arguments -advanced by the member from Maryland; and he entertained a better -opinion than that gentleman seemed to possess of the jurymen in the -Western counties. Mr. C. foresaw many bad consequences that might -possibly flow from this alacrity in discharging damages. What if there -should be a collusive insurrection between two parties, and then, -instead of twenty thousand dollars, we shall have to discharge a bill of -perhaps an hundred thousand, or twice that sum? He considered it as good -a plea in bar of prosecutions to say, Government has paid you. But if we -are so fond of indemnifying people who suffer losses, the House may -begin by satisfying the settlers in the back part of Georgia, where the -Creeks within the last ten months only have done mischief to the extent -of five or six hundred thousand dollars. He should be glad to hear the -House disposed to indemnify these people, but it was what he did not -expect. He could not see why these sufferers were not as much entitled -to compensation as the others in the four Western counties. As to the -Creeks, the State of Georgia was neither at war nor peace with them. -Peace it was called, but in the mean time the savages were committing -incessant murders. Reverting to the question before the House, Mr. C. -said, that it would be most impolitic to proceed at present in the -payment of these losses; and he was convinced that the PRESIDENT -himself, when he made the reference in his Speech, did not intend that -the thing should be acted on immediately. Mr. C. hoped that there would -be a delay for the present session. The best way to ascertain the real -extent of the damages was to leave the matter to the decision of a jury. -When juries have determined this point, then, if the rebels cannot pay, -give satisfaction to the sufferers in terms of the verdicts. The member -from Maryland had said, that damages could not be accurately specified -by a jury. Yes. If you pay nothing at present, but, if you pay at -present, the action is barred. Mr. C. had not entirely formed his -opinion on the question of compensation, but he was satisfied that it -was better to make a delay. - -Mr. DEXTER, in reply to the supposition that this compensation would -encourage future insurrections, gave it as his opinion that it would be -the means of preventing them. An insurgent would say to himself, "I -might escape from the prosecution of my neighbor, but, when the United -States assist him, I cannot stand against both." Mr. D. conceived that -the meaning of the resolution had been mistaken, and he placed the -question in a light entirely new and unnoticed by any former speaker. -Gentlemen had spoken as if the resolution went to the immediate and -complete discharge of the whole damages, and upon this many arguments -had been founded. This idea was an entire mistake, for the first -resolution went only to ascertain the real extent of the damages, and -did not pledge the House to pay the total amount of them. He considered -this as a very material distinction, and which, in a great measure, -obviated many arguments on the opposite side of the question. Mr. D. did -not think, with the member from Georgia, that the same rule applied to -the south-western settlers of that State and to parties in the present -resolution. The people on the frontiers have "placed themselves in a -place of danger knowingly." The Creeks were an open enemy, but the -insurgents were an unexpected one. Mr. D. proceeded at great length to -make a distinction between the two cases, and concluded by saying that -the second resolution, which, as well as the first, he hoped would pass, -went only to a temporary relief. - -Mr. HARTLEY also placed a part of the question in quite a different -light from any former gentleman. Since he had been a member of that -House he had found occasion to read a good deal of law, and, from that -knowledge of law, he had, yesterday, in the committee, informed the -House that neither General Neville nor any body else could obtain -damages against the rioters in a civil action. All the arguments, -therefore, which had been advanced as to whether equitable damages could -be recovered before a jury, proceeded upon an error, because no civil -process whatever would lie in the case. If the House were disposed to -doubt his own opinion, Mr. H. could now give them that of the first law -officer in Pennsylvania. Since yesterday Mr. H. had consulted that -gentleman, who gave it as his express opinion that the greater crime -absorbs the lesser; that a case of this kind is only a criminal action, -and that no penal damages can be recovered. The crime is liable to a -capital punishment; he did not mean to death; but to such a degree of -punishment as the offence should be found to deserve. Mr. H. added, -that if people had known that they were to be indemnified for their -losses by the United States, a much greater number would have stood by -the law than did so. It was not the fear of personal danger which -prevented people from resisting the insurgents; it was apprehension of -having their barns burned down in the night time. - -Mr. DEXTER interrupted Mr. HARTLEY to inquire whether, by the laws of -this State, the property of an insurgent is forfeited for his crime? Mr. -HARTLEY replied that it was not. Mr. DEXTER then remarked, that it was -very absurd to say to a man, "You are an insurgent; you have committed a -great deal of mischief, but you are so very deep an offender that I -cannot recover damages." Mr. HARTLEY rose again to give some further -explanation, when the SPEAKER announced that he had something to -communicate to the House. Mr. HARTLEY sat down, and the SPEAKER said, -that he had received from the PRESIDENT some important and confidential -communications, which it was requisite to read in the House this day. It -did not appear that they would decide on the first resolution at -present, and there was not now more time left before the common hour of -rising than would be necessary for reading the communications from the -PRESIDENT. The debate was instantly deferred, and the galleries cleared. - - -FRIDAY, December 19. - -WILLIAM IRVINE, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the -House. - -_Pennsylvania Insurgents._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the resolutions reported on -Wednesday last, from the Committee of the whole House, on the report of -the committee to whom was referred that part of the Speech of the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES which relates to the policy of -indemnifying the sufferers by the depredations of the insurgents in the -Western counties of Pennsylvania. Whereupon, - -The first resolution being under consideration, in the following words, -to wit: - - "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be - requested to cause an ascertainment to be made of the - losses sustained by the officers of Government and other - citizens, in their property, (in consequence of their - exertions in support of the laws,) by the insurgents in the - Western counties of Pennsylvania." - -The amendment of Mr. BOUDINOT, on which the House had been debating on -Wednesday, was read. It was for the insertion, after the words "and -other citizens," of the following addition: "personally aiding and -assisting them." - -Mr. HARTLEY then rose, and spoke as follows: I have no great -encouragement to speak, when I find that my expressions and language -have been totally mistaken, both by gentlemen in this House and by the -person who frequently reports the debates. On Tuesday, I had ventured to -say, that I thought no great reliance could be had upon the individuals -injured obtaining satisfaction by personal actions against the -insurgents; that I imagined the civil remedy was merged in the offence -of arson against the State, or perhaps a higher offence; that, from the -state of things, we could not promise ourselves that the sufferers would -be compensated by civil suits. - -On Wednesday, I mentioned to the House, that, though there had been much -discussion, yet, as I considered part of the House to labor under what I -held to be a mistake with respect to the _lex loci_, or law of the -State, which we were obliged to take into view, I held it my duty to -observe, that, the day before, I had said that I thought the smaller -offence, that is, the civil injury, had been merged in the greater -against society; that the offence, so far as related to the State, would -be arson, which had been a capital offence, punishable with death, that -the punishment had been mitigated by the alteration of the penal code, -but still it was a felony. I noticed that I had formerly read law a good -deal with considerable attention, but since I had been in Congress, I -had not been able to bestow much time upon it. I said that formerly -certain principles or maxims had made impression upon my mind; that, -among others, was the one under consideration, that, in arson, the -injury to the individual was merged in that against society, or, at -least, must give way to the other; and public justice must be done in -the first place. I mentioned that I had consulted one of the first law -officers of the State, which is true, and he agreed with me in opinion. -Indeed, he added, that no reliance should be had upon the personal -remedy, but that compensation ought to be made to the sufferers. - -I have no reason to change my former opinion. Really, when I consider -the conduct of the commissioners to those who made their submissions, I -should imagine it was the intention of the parties that there was to be -an oblivion as well of the civil as the criminal offences to those who -submitted; and, as the Legislature has the power to construe the -agreement, it becomes her rather to do it with magnanimity than -otherwise. - -Your officers, and those aiding and assisting them, ought to be -protected and supported. I will now say, as I did the other day, that -the fear of having their houses or barns burned, terrified many a man in -the Western country from joining the standard of the law, and forced him -to temporize with rebellion. When the officers know that they are to be -protected in their persons and property--when the _posse comitatus_ are -informed that they are to be regarded in like manner--we may expect -energy in the execution of the laws. The law of Pennsylvania is -defective, or at least doubtful; and, if the present punishment for -arson continues, the Legislature of that State will, I dare say, point -out a decided remedy for the party injured against the offender. It -becomes the honor and justice of the Legislature to protect and support -the officers, and those aiding them. I shall, therefore, vote for the -amendment. - -Mr. VENABLE differed entirely from the gentleman who spoke last. He -understood that pardons extended only to the offences against -Government. It would, for that reason, be no hardship against the people -who had received pardons to prosecute them for civil damages; and, by -the statement of the member himself, actions would lie where no public -prosecutions had been made. - -Mr. SWIFT was of opinion that the member from Pennsylvania (Mr. HARTLEY) -was most certainly mistaken in point of law, when he imagined that the -pardon granted by the commissioners extended, or might be construed to a -remission of civil offences. He did not believe it to be in the power of -Government to pardon these rioters and trespassers to that length. He -did not expect that the gentleman from Pennsylvania would have stood up -in the House to recommend an unqualified pardon. When a million of -dollars had been expended, were the House to give them fifteen or twenty -thousand dollars more? He did not come there prepared to hear of a -premium for insurrection. He rejected all idea of so much tenderness for -rioters and rebels. - -Mr. BOUDINOT rejected all idea of the rioters being exempted from civil -suits. There was but one exception, where they were executed for their -crimes. He had no other view of the matter, but as a question of -policy--whether it was expedient, or the contrary, to prosecute these -people. He believed that, before the new constitution, the law stood as -the member from Pennsylvania represented it. But all this was much from -the purpose. By far the greater number of the rioters have accepted the -amnesty. Nobody imagines them exempted from prosecution. To prevent any -misconception of this nature, the commissioners, in the terms of pardon -which they held out, expressly warned the people that they were to be -liable to civil actions for the damages committed. It was needless, -then, to embarrass the question with more difficulties than naturally -belonged to it. He was satisfied that this was a mere question of -policy, whether it was better to pay off these people at once, or let -them first try the effects of civil actions. - -Mr. DAYTON rose and asked, "Who shall decide, when doctors disagree?" -Who shall declare what is the law, when the learned gentlemen of the bar -are so directly opposed to each other? The House (Mr. D. observed) had, -by some means, imperceptibly, and, he thought, unnecessarily, been drawn -into the discussion of a common law question. Law had been aptly -compared to a bottomless pit, and the sooner, therefore, that they -extricated themselves from it, the better. Very fortunately, (he said,) -there existed no necessity for determining, in the present cases, upon -any intricate point of law, as the proposals of amnesty, in their very -terms, as well as in their nature, left each individual trespasser -liable to suits at law on the part of the friends of good order, for the -damages sustained by the one and done by the other. Mr. D. was for -allowing those prosecutions to go forward, and was well informed, not -only that there was far more than sufficient of the property of the -insurgents to make compensation, but that it was probable they would -agree together, and make up the whole among themselves, rather than be -vexed by lawsuits. He could not agree with those gentlemen who expressed -a wish to vote for the whole amount of damages, immediately to be paid -from the Treasury. He did not believe with them, that such a measure -would promote the dignity, or manifest the justice, of the Government. -This would be to enter into an improper compromise with guilt. It would -be to make peace with sedition, in a way that might tend to encourage -rather than, to discourage it in future. We were obligated, upon -principle and precedent, to ensure indemnity to those officers of -Government, who, in consequence of a prompt and steady discharge of -their duty, had suffered in their property from the resentment of the -insurgents. But he wished not to do more, until the result of actions at -law could be ascertained. Although the Government may offer a pardon for -offences against the public, yet nothing was more clear than that the -general amnesty did not, and could not, exempt the seditious offenders -from answering to private persons for injuries done to them in their -property. - -Mr. HARTLEY rose to explain. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. SWIFT) -had mistaken his meaning. He was going on, when - -Mr. DAYTON rose, and declared that he had never put any such -construction on the words of the gentleman, who certainly must have -misapprehended him. - -I did not mean you, sir, (said Mr. HARTLEY,) I said the gentleman from -_Connecticut_. You made a mistake of the same kind with me last session. - -The amendment of Mr. BOUDINOT was, on a division, lost--only twenty-six -gentlemen rising when the question was called for. - -The question on the first resolution was then called for; when it was -moved to take the previous question, that is to say, "Shall the main -question be now put?" - -Mr. FITZSIMONS rose. He thought that this discussion comprehended a -principle of the most important nature. He trusted that it would not be -got rid of in this way. He was not of opinion with those gentlemen who -were disposed to waive the question just now, under the notion that they -should have an opportunity of voting for it at another time. He believed -that the true design of moving the previous question was to lay it aside -altogether. This expedient should not answer the end; for, if he had -only one other gentleman in the House to second him, he would stand by -the matter until he obtained an explicit answer. - -Mr. MCDOWELL vindicated the propriety of taking the previous question. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, that when the British carried on a most unjust war -against this country, the Ministry who began it were in time turned -out. Their successors had always reprobated the war, but, after the -peace, they, notwithstanding, had expended several millions to support -the loyalists. While the British had acted with so much liberality, did -it become Americans to stick at the paltry sum of seventeen thousand -dollars? The House had wrangled so long about this matter, that the very -wages which they received for the time spent in this discussion would -about have discharged the whole sum in dispute. When a wild, -unprincipled, mad attempt had been made to destroy this noble -constitution, were the Representatives of this people to make it a doubt -whether those who saved it from, perhaps, destruction, were to be -indemnified? Mr. S. declared that he felt more unpleasant sensations -than he remembered ever to have experienced since he became a member of -this House. Gentlemen might argue and argue about this drop in the -bucket compared with the ocean. They might go into metaphysical -deductions about whether the men who saved this constitution were, some -of them, to be reduced to beggary and misery, as the price of having -done so. He would bring up the question again and again, until he had -the sense of the House again. Mr. S. repeated the following argument, -which he, on a former day, had pressed. He asked whether persons who, -from the pure, conscious dignity of the republican character, stepped -forward to support the Government, did not deserve better of it than -excise officers, who were bound to and paid for their services? He was -even of opinion that the conduct of the private soldiers in this case -was more meritorious than that of the officers. He might be mistaken, -but his opinion was so. From this language it is not to be inferred that -Mr. S. undervalued the exertions of the officers of the army, or of the -excise. He only meant that the less interest or emolument which an -individual has at stake in the success of an affair, the greater is his -merit in performing it. He asked what better time there was than the -present for settling the amount of these claims? - -Mr. HEATH was for the previous question. He thought the resolution -unseasonable at this time. However little the gentleman chose to think -of seventeen thousand dollars, they might grow into a precedent for -seventeen hundred thousand dollars. - -Mr. BOUDINOT thought that the seventeen thousand dollars were not the -whole of the damages that might be claimed. When commissioners were sent -to the Westward, the demand might rise to seventy thousand. Numerous -other requisitions might start up. He was for taking the previous -question. - -Mr. DEXTER regretted his necessity to differ from a gentleman (Mr. -BOUDINOT) for whose opinions he was in the habit of entertaining the -highest respect. He was against the previous question, because he -disliked obliquity. Whether he was against or for the first resolution -in the report of the select committee, he would give the resolution -itself a fair meeting. He then inquired what better time there could be -for learning the number and extent of the losses than the present? He -again explained, as on Wednesday, that the House appeared to mistake the -extent of the resolution, which did not imply any complete -indemnification, nor even assure any relief at all. The whole amounted -only to the taking of measures for obtaining information. He would not -have voted for it, if he had thought that it promised complete -indemnification. He thought that no future time could be so proper as -the present for deciding. - -Mr. SWIFT, Mr. KITTERA, and Mr. GILBERT, also spoke. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE went on the same ground with Mr. DEXTER. He was one of the -committee who drew up the resolutions. They never understood that the -resolution implied an assurance of complete indemnity to the sufferers. - -The previous question was called for by five members, to wit: "Shall the -main question, to agree to the said resolution, be now put?" - -And on the previous question, "Shall the said main question be now put?" -it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 52, nays 31, as follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, John Beatty, Elias - Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert - Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Jonathan Dayton, - Henry Dearborn, Samuel Dexter, Gabriel Duvall, William - Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, - Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James - Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, - Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse, William - Hindman, Samuel Holten, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Latimer, - Amasa Learned, William Lyman, Francis Malbone, William - Montgomery, Peter Muhlenberg, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, - Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, Thomas Scott, Theodore - Sedgwick, William Smith, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, - Jonathan Trumbull, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peter Van - Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, John Watts, Benjamin Williams, - and Richard Winn. - - NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, - Gabriel Christie, Joshua Coit, George Dent, William B. - Giles, James Gillespie, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, - John Heath, John Hunter, Richard Bland Lee, Matthew Locke, - James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, Andrew - Moore, Anthony New, John Nichols, Nathaniel Niles, Robert - Rutherford, John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Israel - Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, - Francis Walker, Paine Wingate, and Joseph Winston. - -Mr. GILBERT then moved a resolution, the substance of which was -understood to be to ascertain whether the losses in the Western counties -were incurred in defence of Government, and how far the sufferers were -capable to carry on the lawsuits themselves against the rioters. - -Mr. GILES, was against the amendment, the resolution itself, and the -whole mode of conducting the business. He had listened to many long -speeches, and been surprised that no gentleman had made the observation -which he was now going to submit to the House. - -[The noise had by this time become so intense, that the SPEAKER rose and -reminded the members of a rule that there must be no private -conversation while a member addresses the Chair.] - -Mr. G. then proceeded to declare that he disliked the form rather than -the substance of the resolution. If people in the Western counties had -suffered injuries, why should not they, as well as every other class of -citizens, come to the bar of that House and petition? An inquest was, he -imagined, intended, which would unite all the back country in one common -interest against the Treasury of the United States. The mode proposed by -the report of the select committee was the most exceptionable of all -that could have been devised. It was said that this was only an affair -of seventeen thousand dollars. What evidence have we that the demand -will stop there? Sir, there is none. The mode is, besides, totally -wrong. Let persons who have suffered come here in the usual manner. It -is said that a gentleman has had his house burned. Let him come here and -tell us so. Mr. G. entirely scouted the idea advanced by Mr. DEXTER, -that we might inquire into the extent of the losses, without a design to -discharge them. If you do not mean to indemnify, why inquire at all? He -did not object to relieving the sufferers, but, to erect a board of -inquest, under Presidential direction, was what he never would consent -to. He again repeated, that he did not mean to dissent from the -principle, but from this most exceptionable of all modes for putting it -into practice. Let people lay memorials of their losses before the -House, which would then see distinctly what it was doing, and examine -the evidence on which the claim was founded. He wondered that none of -all the speakers in the debate had adverted to this distinction. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE differed in every particular from the gentleman who spoke -last. If petitioners come from the Westward, they are referred to a -select committee. They bring all the evidence which they can muster to -swell their bill. The committee have no counter-evidence, as we in this -House almost never hear more than one of the parties. It is much better -to send persons to the spot who can examine the subject on both sides, -which we cannot possibly do, and who will be responsible to this House -for their conduct. The whole arguments and ideas of Mr. H. were in -direct contradiction to every thing advanced by Mr. GILES. He (Mr. H.) -was satisfied that, before we undertook to pay the losses of the Western -people, it was better, in the first place, to know the extent of them. -The resolution amounted to nothing more than the ascertaining of this -loss, and Mr. H. could see many good reasons for deferring the payment -of a bill until he knew the sum to which it amounted. He could also see -reasons why the mode recommended in the resolution was much preferable -to that of bringing people so far to the House. Commissioners going to -the spot could make themselves perfectly masters of the subject; -whereas, if the parties come here, the matter will be decided on _ex -parte_ evidence, as it always is. - -Mr. BOUDINOT considered the resolution as too loosely worded. A -gentleman who had been on the expedition, and who had heard or read the -report, observed to him (Mr. B.) that he himself came within the -resolution, as he had suffered considerably in his business by his -absence. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE explained, that the resolution extended only to actual -destruction. The committee never meant to compensate people for the loss -which they had suffered by being banished. He was ready, if the House -liked it better, to insert in the first resolution the words "property -actually destroyed." This would prevent the misapprehension of the -gentleman mentioned by Mr. BOUDINOT. - -The House divided on the amendment of Mr. GILBERT--ayes 39, noes 33. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE then moved to strike out the word "in" from the first -resolution, and put into its place, "by the actual destruction of" their -property. - -Mr. MADISON apprehended that this amendment left the resolution as bad -as it was before, if not worse. A person in the Western counties had his -horse stolen by the insurgents. But this did not imply the actual -destruction or annihilation of the horse. The amendment meant either too -much or too little. It certainly could be no improvement on the -resolution. - -After some further discussion, the amendment was agreed to. - -And the main question being put, that the House do agree to the said -resolution, amended to read as follows: - - "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be - requested to cause an ascertainment to be made of the - losses sustained by the officers of Government, and other - citizens, by the actual destruction of their property (in - consequence of their exertions in support of the laws) by - insurgents in the Western counties of Pennsylvania; - together with a report of the particular condition of the - respective sufferers, in relation to their ability to - prosecute their several claims, and recover, at law, - satisfaction from the insurgent aggressors." - -It was resolved in the affirmative. - -The second resolution on the subject of indemnification was then taken -up in the House. - -Mr. BOUDINOT moved the following amendatory addition: - - "To aid such of the sufferers as, in his (the President's) - opinion, stand in need of immediate assistance, to be - accounted for by them in such manner as may hereafter be - directed by law." - -The amendment was carried, forty-four gentlemen rising. - -The resolution, as amended, is as follows: - - "_Resolved_, That the President be authorized to draw out - of the Treasury of the United States the sum of ---- - dollars, to be applied by him to aid such of the said - sufferers as, in his opinion, stand in need of immediate - assistance, to be accounted for by them in such manner as - may hereafter be directed by law." - -_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said -resolutions; and that Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. FINDLAY, Mr. LYMAN, Mr. WATTS, -and Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, do prepare and bring in the same. - - -FRIDAY, December 26. - -Two other members, to wit: JEREMIAH WADSWORTH, from Connecticut; and -SAMUEL SMITH, from Maryland, appeared, and took their seats in the -House. - -_Naturalization Bill._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on -the bill to amend the act, entitled "An act to establish a uniform rule -of naturalization." - -Mr. GILES proposed to amend the intended test of a citizen, by adding, -after "two witnesses giving evidence as to his moral character," these -words: "attached to a Republican form of Government." He thought this -test proper, to prevent those poisonous communications from Europe, of -which gentlemen were so much afraid. - -Mr. DEXTER preferred saying, "attached to the Constitution of the United -States." - -To this amendment Mr. GILES had little or no objection. - -Mr. BOUDINOT did not see the use of either amendment. It was only giving -unnecessary trouble. The oath which the person himself must take, was -sufficient for expressing his fidelity to the Government of this -country. - -Mr. NICHOLAS considered both the amendment, and the clause to which it -was annexed, as unnecessary; and even if in themselves proper, they were -misplaced. He thought both equally superfluous. They should have been -inserted in the oath of allegiance of the man himself. - -Mr. DAYTON hoped that the whole clause would be rejected. He should be -against it, unless the nature of the evidence was referred to a Court of -Justice. He foresaw many difficulties arising to poor men in attempting -to get two such witnesses. It might suit extremely well with merchants -and men of large capital, who had, he supposed, been alluded to the -other day, under the title of meritorious emigrants. He was not so -anxious for them as for useful laboring people, who, as he thought, -would be more likely to do good. This class, however, had never, it was -likely, troubled their heads about forms of Government. He further -objected to the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, that the word -Republican was entirely equivocal. This title was assumed by many -Governments in Europe, which were upon principles entirely different -from ours. Some of them, such as Poland, had been Aristocracies of the -most hideous form. - -Mr. DEXTER hoped that the amendment of Mr. GILES would not pass, [Mr. -GILES had, as before noticed, consented to withdraw it;] not so much for -the sake of the principle, as of the language in which it was -expressed. The word Republican implied so much, that nobody could tell -where to limit it. Why use so hackneyed a word? Many call themselves -Republicans, who, by this word, mean pulling down every establishment: -they were mere Anarchists. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE was equally against the clause and amendment. Mr. DEXTER -and Mr. GILES previously declared themselves extremely doubtful whether -they should even vote for the clause, when amended in their own way. - -Mr. GILES felt himself extremely surprised to hear it asserted on the -floor of Congress, that the words "Republican form of Government" meant -any thing or nothing. He read a passage from the constitution, whereby a -Republican form of Government is guaranteed to each of the United States -composing the Union. He should, therefore, have imagined that the words -were well understood from one end of the Continent to the other. He did -not expect such criticism. He was not sure if he should vote for the -clause at all; but if he did so, he should wish the best to be made of -it. He then altered his amendment to these words: "attached to the -principles of the Government of the United States." - -Mr. DAYTON.--With all the ambition of that gentleman (Mr. GILES) to be -called a Democrat, both he and Mr. D. would more properly be called -Republicans. He again vindicated his assertion as to the equivocal -meaning of the word. A Venetian or Genoese might come to this country, -and take the oath as proposed, and then excuse himself by saying, "it -was the Republican form of my own country which I had in view." One of -the best writers on the British Constitution had called that also a -Republic. - -Mr. MADISON was of opinion that the word was well enough understood to -signify a free Representative Government, deriving its authority from -the people, and calculated for their benefit; and thus far the amendment -of his colleague was sufficiently proper. Mr. M. doubted whether he -himself should, however, vote for the clause, thus amended. It would, -perhaps, be very difficult for many citizens to find two reputable -witnesses, who could swear to the purity of their principles for three -years back. Many useful and virtuous members of the community may be -thrown into the greatest difficulties, by such a procedure. In three -years time, a person may have shifted his residence from one end of the -Continent to the other. How then was he to find evidence of his behavior -during such a length of time? But he objected to both amendments on a -different ground. It was hard to make a man swear that he preferred the -Constitution of the United States, or to give any general opinion, -because he may, in his own private judgment, think Monarchy or -Aristocracy better, and yet be honestly determined to support this -Government as he finds it. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE then proposed as an amendment, to insert, that "evidence -should be produced to the satisfaction of the Court." - -Mr. DEXTER mentioned the abuses that have happened in the present form -of admitting citizens. He did not comprehend the argument of Mr. DAYTON, -that it would be more easy for a rich than for a poor man to get -evidences to swear to his having resided in the country. If he had not, -the fact was of a notorious nature. It would likewise be as easy for a -poor man, as for a rich one, to get an attestation of his character. The -point of residence was, in itself, but little. A man may have resided -here for a long time, and defrauded the citizens, which would be no -recommendation. - -Several other gentlemen spoke. The resolution finally passed. - -The second resolution produced a long conversation, in the course of -which Mr. MURRAY declared that he was quite indifferent if not fifty -emigrants came into this Continent in a year's time. It would be unjust -to hinder them, but impolitic to encourage them. He was afraid that, -coming from a quarter of the world so full of disorder and corruption, -they might contaminate the purity and simplicity of the American -character. - -The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again. - - -MONDAY, December 29. - -_Naturalization Bill._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on -the bill to amend the act entitled, "An act to establish a uniform rule -of naturalization." - -The motion before the committee, made by Mr. VENABLE, when they broke -off the last discussion, had been to strike the word "moral" out of this -amendment: "good moral character." These three words, altogether, were -an addition of what was to be attested by the witnesses for a candidate -to admission as a citizen. - -Mr. DEXTER opened the debate on the amendment of Mr. VENABLE to the -amendment by saying, that he wished to hear the reasons for it. - -Mr. NICHOLAS said, that he did not make the motion, but his colleague, -who had made it, thought that the insertion of the word "moral" gave too -strict an air to the sentence. This word might be hereafter implied to -mean something relative to religious opinions. - -Mr. SEDGWICK remarked, that if no better reason than that advanced by -Mr. NICHOLAS could be given for striking out the word "moral," he could -not agree to it. Moral is opposed to immoral, but has no particular -reference whatever to religion, or whether a man believes any thing or -nothing. It has no reference to religious opinions. We can every where -tell, by the common voice of the world, whether a man is moral or not in -his life, without difficulty. In some States of the Union, adultery is -not punishable by law, yet it is every where said to be an immoral -action. It is too nice to make a distinction between a good character -and a good moral character. The word good itself is very equivocal in -its meaning. It signifies any thing, every thing, or nothing. A good -companion is one thing; a good man, as applied to wealth, conveys a -different sense; and so on. - -Mr. B. BOURNE considered the amendment itself and the motion of Mr. -VENABLE to strike out the word "moral," as equally useless. - -Mr. MURRAY hoped that the word would not be struck out. This would be -the greatest slander ever cast upon the American character. It would -excite the surprise of foreign nations. - -Mr. VENABLE had thought the wording of the phrase too strict; but rather -than have any further dispute, he withdrew his motion for striking out -the word "moral." - -The clause was then read as amended. - -Mr. GILBERT thought that the term of residence, before admitting aliens, -ought to be very much longer than mentioned in the bill. The Chairman -informed him that the term in the bill was left blank. - -Mr. SEDGWICK agreed to the idea of Mr. GILBERT. He wished that a method -could be found of permitting aliens to possess and transmit property, -without, at the same time, giving them a right to vote. He did not know -if the constitution authorized such a thing. - -After some further conversation, the clause passed. The third resolution -in the report was then read; which was, that if an American citizen -chose to expatriate himself, he should not be allowed to enter into the -list of citizens again without a special act of Congress, and of the -State from which he had gone. - -Mr. MADISON did not think that Congress, by the constitution, had any -authority to readmit American citizens at all. It was only granted to -them to admit aliens. - -Mr. SEDGWICK was very willing, for his part, that citizens who had once -expatriated themselves should never be readmitted again. - -The committee, on two successive motions to that effect, from Mr. -Madison and Mr. GILES, rose. The Chairman reported progress, and asked -leave to sit again, which was granted. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 31. - -LEMUEL BENTON, from South Carolina, appeared, and took his seat in the -House. - - -THURSDAY, January 1, 1795. - -_Naturalization Bill._ - -The House proceeded to consider the amendments reported yesterday from -the Committee of the whole House, to the bill to amend the act entitled, -"An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." - -The House went through the report of the committee, and agreed to the -amendments. - -Mr. GILES then rose to make his promised motion as to the exclusion of -any foreign emigrant from citizenship who had borne a title of nobility -in Europe till he had formally renounced it. He proceeded to observe -that, agreeably to the spirit of the constitution, we ought to have the -strongest possible evidence that people of this description have -renounced all pretence to a right of this nature, before we admit them -into the bosom of society. Moderation had been recommended. He requested -gentlemen to observe that he conducted his motion on the strictest -principles of moderation. He had, in a former part of this bill, voted -for some clauses which were intended to guard the Government against any -disturbance from the people called Jacobins, when their principles -should run to a dangerous and seditious extreme. The same spirit of -candor and moderation which had induced him to vote for a precaution -against the attempts of the one party, now led him to propose a -precaution against the prejudices of the aristocrats, which were, upon -the whole, more hostile to the spirit of the American constitution than -those of their antagonists. He also requested gentlemen to observe that -his present motion went not to the invasion of any positive right. It -left the individual exactly where it found him, unless he aspired to be -an American citizen. Otherwise, he might retain his titles undisturbed -as long as he pleased. But if he wanted any promotion of a civil nature -in this country, he must rise to it by conforming exactly to the rules -laid down by the constitution itself. That code had declared no titled -character admissible to any civil rank. It was not to be supposed that -people born and nurtured in the lap of aristocracy would heartily -renounce their titles, and become all at once sincere Republicans. It -was, therefore, highly improper that such people should be admitted. If -we are allowed to anticipate probabilities, it seems highly probable -that we shall soon have a great number of this kind of persons here. A -revolution is now going onward, to which there is nothing similar in -history. A large portion of Europe has already declared against titles, -and where the innovations are to stop, no man can presume to guess. -There is at present no law in the United States by which a foreigner can -be hindered from voting at elections, or even from coming into this -House; and if a great number of these fugitive nobility come over, they -may soon acquire considerable influence. The tone of thinking may -insensibly change in the course of a few years, and no person can say -how far such a matter may spread. After these, and other prefatory -remarks, Mr. G. read a resolution, which was in effect as follows: - - "And in case any alien applying for admission to - citizenship of the United States, shall have borne any - title or order of nobility in any Kingdom or State from - whence he may come, he must renounce all pretensions to his - title before the court in which such application shall be - made; and this renunciation must be registered in the said - court." - -Mr. G. observed, that previous to the late revolution, the French -nobility were, by the lowest calculation, rated at twenty thousand; and -as we may conclude on France being successful, a great proportion of -these people may be finally expected here. - -Mr. DEXTER declared that he was not very anxious against the resolution. -He, however, opposed it. He imagined that, by the same mode of -reasoning, we might hinder his Holiness the Pope from coming into this -country. He entered at some length into the ridicule of certain tenets -in the Roman Catholic religion, and said that priestcraft had done more -mischief than aristocracy. - -Mr. MADISON said that the question was not perhaps so important as some -gentlemen supposed; nor of so little consequence as others seem to think -it. It is very probable that the spirit of Republicanism will pervade a -great part of Europe. It is hard to guess what numbers of titled -characters may, by such an event, be thrown out of that part of the -world. What can be more reasonable than that when crowds of them come -here, they should be forced to renounce every thing contrary to the -spirit of the constitution. He did not approve the ridicule attempted to -be thrown out on the Roman Catholics. In their religion there was -nothing inconsistent with the purest republicanism. In Switzerland, -about one-half of the Cantons were of the Roman Catholic persuasion. -Some of the most democratical Cantons were so; Cantons where every man -gave his vote for a representative. Americans had no right to ridicule -Catholics. They had, many of them, proved good citizens during the -Revolution. As to hereditary titles, they were proscribed by the -constitution. He would not wish to have a citizen, who refused such an -oath. - -Mr. PAGE was for the motion of his colleague. It did not become that -House to be afraid of introducing democratical principles. Titles only -gave a particular class of men a right to be insolent, and another class -a pretence to be mean and cringing. The principle will come in by -degrees, and produce mischievous effects here as well as elsewhere. If -such men do come here, nothing can be more grateful to a Republican than -to see them renounce their titles. This does not amount to any demand of -making them renounce their principles. If they do not aspire to be -citizens, they may assume as many titles as they think fit. Equality is -the basis of good order and society, whereas titles turn every thing -wrong. Mr. P. said that a scavenger was as necessary to the health of a -city as any one of its magistrates. It was proper, therefore, not to -lose sight of equality, and to prevent, as far as possible, any -opportunities of being insolent. He did not want to see a duke come here -and contest an election for Congress with a citizen. - -Mr. SEDGWICK was really at a loss to see what end this motion could -answer. He agreed with the arguments of Mr. GILES. But the point in view -was explicitly provided for already. By taking an oath of citizenship, -the individual not only renounces but solemnly abjures nobility. The -title is destroyed when the allegiance is broken by his oath being taken -to this Government. This abjuration has destroyed all connection with -the old Government. Why then provide for it a second time? - -Mr. GILES said, that by admitting a thing to have been once done, it was -admitted that it might be done again. If it had been right to do it -once, there could be no harm in repeating it. The member then quoted Mr. -DEXTER, who rose and declared that the gentleman had misunderstood him. -He spoke for some time, and when he sat down-- - -Mr. GILES declared himself incapable of comprehending whether Mr. DEXTER -was for his motion or against it. He therefore proceeded to reply to Mr. -SEDGWICK, whose chief argument had been that the thing was provided for -already. He did not suppose that this gentleman would allege the matter -to be explicitly provided for. It only could be so by implication; which -was a very bad way of making a law, because it gave room for endless -disputes. If the thing is in itself right, why refuse to vote directly -for it? Why leave it only to be implied? He wished to let foreigners -know expressly the ground upon which they stood. Why not tell them at -once, and in plain English, you must renounce your titles before you can -have the privileges of an American citizen? Mr. G. pressed home this -idea more than once. He meant no act of inhospitality to these -emigrants. He would deprive them of no right, nor do any thing unkind to -them. But he was entitled, by the spirit of the constitution, to -withhold this right from them till they renounced all hereditary titles. -This was no incivility. He concluded by declaring that he would, if -supported, call for the yeas and nays on this question. A number of -members rose to support this proposal. - -Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to the motion, but that it did not go far -enough. The emigrants ought to be obliged to swear not only that they -abjured all titles hitherto received, but that they would never accept -of any in future. He believed that this would hurt their feelings, and, -sympathizing with them, he would not urge a proposal that might add to -their distress, but should vote for the motion as it stood. - -Mr. SCOTT was sorry that so much time had been spent on the motion. We -are not by the constitution authorized to make titles; and he -apprehended that if it was unlawful to manufacture a commodity at home, -it was unlawful to import it from abroad. On this account he was for the -resolution. If once we allow the thing to be manufactured at all, he had -no doubt but titles would be as prevalent here as in Britain. He should -think it very odd to see a man sitting opposite to him in that House, -with a star and garter on his breast. The emigrant was as welcome to -wear them as to wear his hat. Only let him wear them out of doors. - -Mr. TRACY thought that more time had been spent upon the subject than it -was worth. He mentioned the proceedings of the French Convention, who, -some time before they cut off the head of the Duke of Orleans, debated -four days upon what name they should give him, and at last called him -_Egalité_. He feared that calling for the yeas and nays thus early would -look like party, as if intended to cast an odium on gentlemen who should -vote against the motion. - -Mr. DEXTER would vote for the resolution, if the gentleman would agree -to an amendment; which was, that he renounced all possession of slaves. - -Mr. THATCHER moved as a second amendment, "and that he never will -possess them." - -The words of Mr. DEXTER's amendment were nearly these: "And also, in -case any such alien shall hold any person in slavery, he shall renounce -it, and declare that he holds all men free and equal." - -Mr. GILES said, that he should begin to think his motion of very -peculiar importance, if such extraordinary resources were adopted to -disappoint it. He was sorry to see slavery made a jest of in that House. -He understood this to be intended as a hint against members from the -Southern States. It had no proper connection with the subject before the -House. He had therefore no scruple in voting against it. It was -calculated to injure the property of gentlemen. As to slavery, he -lamented and detested it; but, from the existing state of the country, -it was impossible at present to help it. He himself owned slaves. He -regretted that he did so, and if any member could point out a way in -which he could be properly freed from that situation, he should rejoice -in it. The thing was reducing as fast as could prudently be done. He -believed that slavery was infinitely more deprecated in countries where -it actually existed, and consequently where its evils were known, than -in other countries where it was only an object of conversation. -Gentlemen had objected to calling for the yeas and nays. Have not the -public a right to know the sentiments of the House on every question? -Was it any unusual thing to call for the yeas and nays? Or was there any -use for it but that the sentiments of every member might be known? - -Mr. MADISON mentioned regulations adopted in Virginia for gradually -reducing the number of slaves. None were allowed to be imported into the -State. The operation of reducing the number of slaves was going on as -quickly as possible. The mention of such a thing in the House had in the -mean time a very bad effect on that species of property, otherwise he -did not know but what he should have voted for the amendment of Mr. -DEXTER. It had a dangerous tendency on the minds of these unfortunate -people. - -Mr. NICHOLAS said, that Mr. DEXTER had more than on one occasion hinted -his opinion that possessors of slaves were unfit to hold any Legislative -trust in a Republican Government. He was solicitous that before Mr. D. -spoke on a subject, he would make himself in some degree acquainted with -it. He ought to acquire some information as to the state of the country, -otherwise his opinion would fall into contempt with those who knew it. -Mr. N. said, that gentlemen who possessed a thousand slaves in Virginia -had no more influence on their neighbor who had not one than that -neighbor had on them. - -Mr. DEXTER complained of the attempt to take the yeas and nays, as a -design to hold up certain people to public odium. He would withdraw his -amendment if the gentleman would withdraw his motion. - -Mr. SEDGWICK rose in some warmth. He said that there was no design in -calling for the yeas and nays but to fix a stigma upon gentlemen in that -House as friends to a nobility, when they were no such thing, and to -raise a popular odium against them. To propose an abolition of slavery -in this country would be the height of madness. Here the slaves are, and -here they must remain. - -A question of adjournment was now carried by 43 against 29. So the -motion of Mr. GILES stands over till to-morrow. - - -FRIDAY, January 2. - -_Naturalization Bill._ - -The House resumed the consideration of the amendments reported on -Wednesday last from the Committee of the whole House to the bill to -amend the act entitled "An act to establish a uniform rule of -naturalization." Whereupon, - -The amendment moved yesterday to the said bill being under -consideration, in the words following, to wit: - - "And in case any such alien applying for admission to - become a citizen of the United States, shall have borne any - hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility - in the kingdom or state from which he came, in addition to - the requisites of this, and the before recited act, he - shall make an express renunciation of his title, or order - of nobility, in the Court to which his application shall be - made, before he shall be entitled to such admission; which - renunciation shall be recorded in the said Court." - -A motion was made and seconded to amend the said amendment, by adding to -the end thereof the words following, to wit: - - "And, also, in case such alien shall, at the time of his - application, hold any person in slavery, he shall in the - same manner renounce all right and claim to hold such - person in slavery." - -On the question that the House do agree to the said amendment to the -amendment, - -Mr. BOURNE said he was against both amendments. He saw no use either for -the one or the other. He recapitulated the numerous checks which the -constitution had framed against nobility getting into it. He, therefore, -with all these checks, could see no danger from it. So much for the -expediency of the proposal. He next considered it in a different point -of view. A foreigner comes, perhaps with a title, which he has derived -from a long train of ancestors, and, with a very pardonable infirmity, -he is fond, he is perhaps proud, of his badge of nobility. Is it polite, -is it generous, to force him to renounce it? If it is an hereditary -title, he can renounce only for himself. His children shall inherit the -right. Mr. B. wished both amendments withdrawn. - -Mr. RUTHERFORD said, the people of America had an exceeding aversion to -the bubble of nobility. He had so much confidence in the wisdom, good -sense, and public spirit, of the gentlemen in this House, that he was -sure the amendment would be carried by a very great majority. He was -equally certain that the amendment of the other gentleman (Mr. DEXTER) -would be rejected. It went to wound the feelings and alienate the -affections of six or eight States in the Union. He was against the yeas -and nays. He wished for a silent vote. - -Mr. MCDOWELL.--When the gentleman from Massachusetts first brought -forward the motion on the table, Mr. McD. could not think he was -sincere, from the idea which he had formed of the candor and good sense -of that gentleman. But, much to his surprise, Mr. D. persisted in -supporting the propriety of his motion, which is not only an indirect -attack on the State Governments, but even on the constitution of the -United States, and on the members of this House who represent the -Southern States. This amendment not only tends to irritate the minds of -members, but of thousands of the good citizens in the Southern States, -as it affects the property which they have acquired by their industry. -Thus it cools their affections towards the Government, as they will find -that one part of the Government is about to operate on their property in -an indirect way. The gentleman dare not come directly forward, and tell -the House, that men who possess slaves are unfit for holding an office -under a Republican Government. Mr. McD. recalled to the mind of the -House the conduct of the people that compose the Southern States, during -the late war, and their struggle for American Independence. He then bade -the House review the behavior of their Representatives, under the -present Government, and say whether they do not partake more of the -Republican spirit than the members from the Eastern States. The latter, -also, no doubt had members who did honor to the States which they -represented, and to the United States. He thought the amendment of Mr. -DEXTER partook more of monarchical or despotic principles than any thing -which he had seen for some time. What right had the House to say to a -particular class of people, you shall not have that kind of property -which other people have? This was the language of the motion, and he -considered it as highly unjust. Mr. McD. wished the gentleman to -consider what might be the consequence of his motion, at this time, when -the West Indies are transformed into an immense scene of slaughter. -When thousands of people had been massacred, and thousands had fled for -refuge to this country, when the proprietors of slaves in this country -could only keep them in peace with the utmost difficulty, was this a -time for such inflammatory motions? He was amazed that a gentleman of -whom he had so high an opinion, could, for a moment, embrace an idea -which was, in all points of view, so extremely improper and dangerous. - -Mr. DEXTER chiefly excused his motion because the other gentlemen had -been for taking the yeas and nays. The tenor of his argument seemed to -be this: You want to hold us up to the public as aristocrats. I, as a -retaliation, will hold you up to the same public as dealers in slaves. -Mr. D., however, did not wish to irritate. He, for that reason, withdrew -his motion, under the hope that the yeas and nays would not be taken. - -Mr. GILES said, that no person could be more anxious than himself to -conciliate. But he could not submit to purchase conciliation by -sacrificing his opinion, or betraying his duty. He should, on that -account, stand by his amendment. It had been said that he called for the -yeas and nays for the purpose of holding up to popular detestation a -certain party in that House. Such an idea had never entered into his -mind. He then commenced a vindication of the propriety of his amendment -against the observations of Mr. BOURNE, who had, among other things, -alleged that it had no proper relation to the spirit of the -Naturalization Bill. After defending it, on this quarter, Mr. G. -proceeded to answer something that had been alleged yesterday against -his amendment. This was that it had been calculated to hold up an idea -to the world, that there was a party in that House in favor of -Aristocracy. If there is no such party, a general vote for the amendment -will prove that this report is without foundation. In reality there is -no connection between the amendment and any such scheme. The idea must -have been in the head of the member himself. It is not the amendment, -but the use which the gentleman makes of it, that can have any tendency -that way. Mr. G. never could have thought of such a way of holding up a -party. As to the amendment of Mr. DEXTER, he, Mr. G., held property -sacred, and never could have consented to prohibit the emigrant nobility -from having slaves any more than other people. But as for titles of -nobility, they were quite a different thing. They were but a name, and -people were not obliged even to give them up, unless they wanted to -become American citizens. As the call of yeas and nays had given such -uncommon uneasiness, he, for his own part, should give it up. He was -careless how the vote was taken. The other gentlemen who supported his -call might act for themselves. - -Mr. LEE said, he hoped that to-day the question would have been taken -without further debate; he had no disposition to say any thing more on -it, and should have remained silent if his colleague (Mr. GILES) had not -made some strictures on the observations which fell from him on the -preceding day. - -Mr. L. always thought the Eastern and Southern States were well situated -to unite on terms of the greatest reciprocal benefit. That, for the good -of his own country, he valued such a union above all things. He knew, in -particular, that it was highly important to the interests of the people -whom he represented, to conciliate the cordial and affectionate esteem -of their Eastern brethren. That this was not only important to his -constituents, but to the whole State, and all the Southern country; as -on it must materially depend the preservation of our Union, which Mr. L. -feared was more necessary to our safety and prosperity than to theirs. -Mr. L. said, he never saw any reason to suspect the Eastern people of -anti-Republican principles; that there was no just ground to accuse them -of such principles in any manner. Mr. L. had always thought that the -Southern country had no right to claim a superiority over their Eastern -brethren in Republican virtue. Mr. L. always lamented that his country -was not, in some points, so fortunately situated as the Eastern States; -but still, he rejoiced to find just ideas of liberty, and a proper -respect to the rights of men, animating all the citizens of it; and in -public virtue they had a right to rank with their brethren to the North -and East of them. Mr. L. thought that his colleague's strongest argument -was the corrupting relation which existed in Europe between noblemen and -their dependants. Mr. L. feared that this argument might too readily be -extended to the situation of this country, and conclusions very -disparaging to their Republican virtue drawn from it, from which he had -felt it his duty to vindicate them. - -Mr. L. believed that the people throughout America were all animated by -an equal zeal for the liberty and happiness of their country. As a -person, therefore, anxious to preserve our harmony and union, he always -felt pain at any question, which was, in any degree, calculated to -excite suspicions of each other, and produce enmity, when concord was so -much the interest of all. This proposition had, to his mind, a very -denunciating aspect; and, as such, he felt it his duty to discountenance -it, and every thing of the same sort, without presuming to ascertain or -question the motives or designs of the mover. Mr. L. could not help -viewing the motion as capable of guarding us from no one danger, but as -well fitted to produce unnecessary alarm and irritation. - -Mr. L. was indifferent how the question was decided; but, being a friend -to harmony and union, he could by no means countenance by his vote any -thing that might be construed to denounce a most respectable and -patriotic part of this House. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE observed, that when the amendment was first introduced, he -considered it as altogether harmless and unnecessary; but, being -friendly to what appeared to be the object of the mover, that is, -keeping out privileged orders from among us, he was inclined to vote for -it. Yet, upon more mature reflection, he was of opinion that if the -provision contained in the amendment had any effect at all, it would be -a directly contrary one from what was intended, and would indirectly -establish the principle that privileged orders might be introduced and -exist among us, a principle which he wholly rejected and reprobated; -and, as he did not doubt that the views of the gentleman who moved the -amendment were similar to his own on that subject, he hoped that, upon -further consideration, he (Mr. GILES) would withdraw it. It was his -opinion that the ground upon which foreigners should be admitted to a -share in the administration of our Government ought to be narrowed in -every possible way, and if the gentleman would so modify the amendment -as wholly to exclude that class of foreigners, or any other, from ever -becoming citizens, so far as to elect or to be elected to any office, he -would most heartily join in giving his vote for it. In those nations -where privileged orders are admitted, the benefits and advantages -arising from it have been considered as merely local, so that, if a -nobleman removes from one nation to another, he is not considered as -carrying with him the privileges of his order; as, for instance, if a -nobleman from any other nation removes to England, where an hereditary -nobility is established by law, and even becomes naturalized, he is not -a peer of England; he is no more than a private subject, and can claim -nothing on account of his former rank. The Convention who formed our -constitution undoubtedly viewed the subject in that light, or they would -have been equally anxious to have provided against the importation as of -the creation of nobility; but, passing this amendment will, as far as -the influence of a law and the opinion of Congress can go, be putting a -different and wrong construction upon the constitution, and will be -admitting that there may be some other mode of introducing a privileged -order or a nobility among us, than the one guarded against in the -constitution; for, if a law is passed requiring a person, before he -shall be admitted to a certain privilege, to renounce some other -privilege, it is clearly admitting that such person does or may possess -such privilege, otherwise the law is futile, requiring a person to -renounce what he does not or cannot possess. - -Mr. J. WADSWORTH rose next. He had been up four times before, but, other -gentlemen always rising along with him, he had sat down again. Mr. W. -said, that a rage against nobility and privileged orders now pervades -the whole world. He really did not see the use of this amendment. It put -him in mind of an old law which, within his memory, had been in use. -When a man had shot himself, his neighbors were not contented with the -certainty of his being dead in this world, and damned in the next, but, -besides all this, they drove a stake through his body. Mr. W. regarded -nobility as in a similar situation with such a man, for nobility -appeared to him in the certain road to instant destruction; and this -amendment of Mr. GILES, he thought, was like driving in the stake. The -latter practice had been laid aside, and he thought that the amendment -deserved the same fate. He reminded the House that the time had been -when America was very much indebted to nobility, and very glad to see -them fight her battles. We might now be taxed with ingratitude on that -head, for some of those identical French noblemen, who, during the late -war, had rendered us essential service, were now in this country in a -state of beggary, subsisting on the charity of their friends. Others of -the same noblemen were in dungeons, and some again had got their heads -chopped off. He was warranted to say that many of those noblemen, when -here, during the war, and long before a French revolution had been -talked of, were, in their hearts, as good Republicans as any Americans -whatever. We had seen, some time ago, a party spirit rising in the -United States. He had observed that the thing was dying away, but the -present amendment would afford a new theme. The newspapers are extremely -numerous, and he doubted not that the writers in them would embrace so -notable an opportunity for exercising their talents. As to the notion -that there was a danger of nobility being introduced into this country, -the thing was held in such detestation in America, that he had no more -apprehension of its obtaining a footing here than he had that there -would arise a new race of men without heads, or with their heads placed -below their shoulders, or any other unnatural production. In short, he -did not know a thing so impossible as the establishment of an American -nobility. Knowing this, he regarded the amendment as entirely useless. -As to the call for the yeas and nays having an impression on his vote, -that was out of the question. He knew his constituents, and they knew -him; and they were both too well acquainted with each other for a trifle -of this nature to have any influence. To him the call was a matter of -the utmost indifference, and he took this opportunity to declare frankly -that he should vote against the amendment, whether the yeas and nays -were called or not. - -Mr. NICHOLAS could not consent to abandon the proposition. It might be -said that he did so in terror of the amendment of Mr. DEXTER, which he -thoroughly despised. - -Mr. BOUDINOT had not designed to speak on this question, but there was -one objection to the amendment, which occurred to him, and which had not -been noticed by any gentleman. This was, that it would be an act of -injustice to make a man do an act in this country which might affect his -own interest, and that of his family in another. This case might very -possibly happen. A person, by renouncing nobility here, might he -debarred from claiming its privileges in another place, when it would, -perhaps, be for his advantage. - -Mr. AMES observed, that too much attention had been given to the -amendment as an abstract question. Nothing tended more to bewilder and -confuse a debate than such a departure from the subject into -abstractions and refinements; for, although by this means we found that -plain principles were rendered obscure, and reasonable doctrines carried -to excess, yet we did not seem to reflect that nothing is more opposite -to just principles than the extremes of those principles. For instance, -it would not be safe or proper indiscriminately to admit aliens to -become citizens, yet a scrutiny into their political orthodoxy might be -carried to a very absurd extreme. The merit of the amendment depends on -its adaptedness to the end proposed by the bill, and what is that? To -make a rule of naturalization for the admission of aliens to become -citizens, on such terms as may consist with our tranquillity and safety. -Now, said he, do we think of refusing this privilege to all heretics in -respect to political doctrines? Even that strictness would not hasten -the millennium. For our own citizens freely propagate a great variety of -opinions hostile to each other, and therefore, many of them deviate -widely from the intended standard of right thinking; good and bad, fools -and wise men, the philosopher and the dupes of prejudice, we find could -live very peaceably together, because there was a sufficient coincidence -of common interest. If we depend on this strong tie, if we oblige -foreigners to wait seven years, till they have formed it, till their -habits as well as interests become assimilated with our own, we may -leave them to cherish or to renounce their imported prejudices and -follies as they may choose. The danger of their diffusing them among our -own citizens, is to be prevented by public opinion, if we may leave -error and prejudice to stand or fall before truth and freedom of -inquiry. - -Can the advocates of the amendment even affect apprehensions that there -is any intention to introduce a foreign nobility as a privileged order? -If they can, such diseases of the brain were not bred by reasoning and -cannot be cured by it. Still less should we give effect by law to -chimerical whimsies. For what is the tendency of this counterfeit alarm? -Is it to rouse again the sleeping apparitions which have disturbed the -back country? Is it to show that the mock dangers which they have -pretended to dread are real? Or, is it to mark a line of separation -between those who have the merit of maintaining the extremes of -political opinions, and those whom this vote would denounce as stopping -at what they deem a wise moderation? If that is the case, it seems that -the amendment is intended rather to publish a creed than to settle a -rule of naturalization. Yet it should be noticed that those who would go -to extremes are less entitled to the praise of Republicanism than those -who would not. - -Mr. SAMUEL SMITH was sorry for the turn which the debate had taken; -though at first it bore a trifling appearance, it had since called up -all the warmth of the House. The gentlemen from the Eastern States, who -knew the Republican character of their constituents, and how independent -every man there was, both in his temper and his circumstances, had -slighted the amendment as unnecessary. Gentlemen from the Southern -States, on the other hand, say that they have some reason to be -apprehensive. Why, said Mr. S., will not the Eastern members indulge us -in this trifle? It is owned by the one party, that it can have no bad -tendency; and the other imagine that it must have a good one. Then why -not, for the sake of conciliation, grant it? - -Mr. MURRAY was sorry that the House had begun the new year with such a -discussion. He had seen with much pleasure the appearances of -conciliation and unanimity at the outset of the session. He should vote -for the amendment, and he hoped that those members who were against it -would come round and vote for it. They would thus put an end to this -motion, so wasteful of time. Of nobility, however, the gentleman had no -alarming apprehensions. There had once been in this House a baronet. He -was there for two years before it was known, and it was then discovered -that a baronet was a thing perfectly harmless. As for titles of -nobility, he believed that all the wholesome and sensible part of the -community looked upon the whole as stuff. When Mr. M. contemplated this -subject, it reminded him of Holbein's Dance of Death.[56] He saw nothing -in this country but the ghosts of nobility. In Europe, indeed, it was a -matter of importance. It established the etiquette of precedence among -the ladies in leading down a country dance. The amendment was not worth -much either one way or the other. But he wished it to be granted for the -reasons assigned by his colleague from Maryland, who had spoke just -before him. - - -Mr. MADISON. When the amendment was first suggested, he had considered -it as highly proper, and naturally connected with the subject. No man -can say how far the Republican revolution that is now proceeding in -Europe will go. If a revolution was to take place in Britain, which for -his part he expected and believed would be the case, the peerage of that -country would be thronging to the United States. He should be ready to -receive them with all that hospitality, tenderness, and respect to which -misfortune is entitled. He should sympathize with them, and be as ready -to afford them whatever friendly offices lay in his power as any man. -But this was entirely distinct from admitting them as citizens of -America before they were constitutionally qualified to become so. In -reply to the remark of Mr. BOUDINOT, that a renunciation of their titles -might injure their families, Mr. M. observed, that if a British -revolution took place, these fugitives would, as aliens, be -incapacitated from holding real estates. In discussing this question, we -had been reminded of the Marquis de Lafayette. He had the greatest -respect for that character; but if he were to come to this country, this -very gentleman would be the first to recommend and acquiesce in the -amendment on the table. He had urged the necessity of utterly abolishing -nobility in France, even at a time when he thought it necessary for the -safety of the state that the king should possess a considerable portion -of power; and Mr. M. believed, that if he were now at freedom, he was as -completely stripped of every thing relative to nobility, as it was -possible he could be. It had been said, that it was needless to make -emigrants renounce their rank, and that oaths were no security. He was -ready to allow, that oaths were, in any case, but a very poor security, -but they had been adopted in other parts of the bill, and the same -reason which recommended them on former occasions might recommend them -now. - -Mr. W. SMITH was convinced that the amendment was wholly incompetent to -the end which it professed to have in view. You may force a man to -renounce his title, but what does that signify, when you cannot hinder -his neighbors from calling both him, his wife, and family by the title? -He replied to the argument of Mr. S. SMITH, as to the Eastern members -giving up the point for the sake of conciliation with the Southern -members. - -He did not understand that his own constituents had any such panic about -them, or that they would thank the Eastern members very ardently for -such a concession. They were not afraid of aristocracy. You cannot -abolish the practice; and even supposing a nobleman had made his -renunciation, perhaps the very person who administered the oath, may, -the next moment, say, "My Lord, I wish you a good morning!" and you -cannot punish the individual who says so. As to not allowing of titles -to wives and daughters, this renunciation will not prevent their being -given. But in some parts of the country we have titles already. Mr. S. -had often heard an old lady called "the Duchess." He could see no good -consequence from the motion. There was indeed one obvious effect. The -ignorant part of the American citizens--who, he hoped, were but -few--would imagine that those who voted for the amendment were against -the introduction of nobility into America, and that those against the -amendment were for that introduction. This frivolous kind of legislation -had disgraced the proceedings of another nation. They had begun to -change the names of their towns and harbors, such as Conde, Dunkirk, -Toulon, Havre de Grace, and Lyons. One of these they had named _Havre de -Marat_, and so on. But now they were coming back to their sober -judgment, and were repealing these edicts. Lyons was restored to its -old name. The pillar erected to announce its rebellion and annihilation -had been taken down. The Convention had formerly passed a law for -demolishing houses inhabited by aristocrats, but now they began to think -it was better to let the houses stand. Would any body say that French -liberty was better secured by naming a harbor _Havre de Marat_? Had this -done any good to the cause? But if people who were so much afraid of the -introduction of nobility would look around them, they might already find -in this country alarming marks of attachment to royalty. When Mr. SMITH -was lately at New Haven, in Connecticut, he had observed on the top of -the State House the figure of a _Crown_, which had stood there -undisturbed since long before the beginning of the Revolution. He went -into the State House, and found the people as good Republicans as could -be, notwithstanding this crown. Again, at Middletown, in the same State, -he went into a church, and on the top of the organ there was another -_Crown_, which might also be interpreted as a proof of monarchical -principles. Reverting to the subject of changing names, Mr. S. said, -that the people in the State of New York had for a long time enjoyed as -much liberty as the other States. At last, however, it was recollected -that one of the streets of the city of New York was called King's -street; but this was changed to _Liberty_ street, which was, to be sure, -a very momentous alteration. If Congress descend to legislate in such -littlenesses, they may forbid the title of Worshipful. They may abolish -the order of Freemasons, which he thought that they had just as much -right to do as to make the foreign nobility renounce their titles before -they should be accepted as American citizens. The Congress may, among -other objects of legislation, forbid any member to come into that House -with an aristocratical cloak--one with gold lace, for example. He asked -more than once this question: What peculiar privileges has a foreign -nobleman, coming into this country, which he possessed more than all -other citizens? He considered the whole amendment as totally trifling. -He was content that the yeas and nays should be taken. His sentiments -were known already. His name should stand among the noes. - -Mr. GILES said, that there had been an echo from one end to the other of -the House that his amendment was trifling. Was it consistent for the -gentleman, who had been up for half an hour, to spend so much time upon -a question, and then conclude by telling the House that it was nothing; -that he had been talking for so long a time upon a subject that did not -merit their attention? What kind of reasoning was this, or how did the -gentleman propose to reconcile it? Was it consistent with the warmth -which had been discovered, to say that all this discussion, all this -length of time, had been consumed upon nothing? But this kind of -language had something more serious in it, for this prohibition of -nobility formed one of the pillars of the constitution; so that to call -a principle recognized and affirmed by the constitution a trifle, or -nothing, and so on, was a very unguarded proceeding. Another notable -argument against agreeing to his amendment had been, that the people -already detested nobility so thoroughly that it was not worth while to -pass this amendment, as their hatred of it would put an end to it -without a law. It was enough that the two principal reasons against his -amendment, were, first, that it was authorized by the constitution, and -secondly, that it would be agreeable to the people. It is strange, that -the will of the people, who send us here, is to have no influence in -this House, but is to be turned into an argument against passing a law! -Mr. G. would adhere to his amendment, because, as the law now stands, -there is nothing to hinder a foreigner with a title to become an -American citizen, and obtain a seat in this House, and hold both his -office and his title. Mr. G. next answered a part of the argument of Mr. -W. SMITH, that making people renounce their titles would only rivet -their attachment to them, and make them, perhaps, think of these things, -when otherwise they would have been forgotten. Mr. G. said, it was quite -a new kind of argument, that to renounce a thing, was the way to give it -existence. If this rule were to hold, he believed that some members of -the House would renounce things which they very much wanted. For -example, he himself should possibly renounce a hundred thousand dollars. -As to the call for yeas and nays, he had some time ago informed the -House that he gave up this point. The thing could not affect him, either -one way or another, because his sentiments were already known. - -Mr. TRACY regretted that so much time should be lost on trifling -subjects. We had seen the National Convention of France diminish their -dignity, by spending three or four days on the business of giving a name -to the late Duke of Orleans, and hardly had they finished, by giving him -the _name_ of Egalité, before in _substance_ he became so bad that they -cut his head off. What good did his renunciation of title do, excepting -that it afforded him a short opportunity of deceiving his -fellow-citizens? Mr. T. said he was fully convinced, and had been so -from the beginning of the debate on the Naturalization bill, that a -length of time was the only valuable probation of an alien, and the only -successful mode of discerning his principles, and the justice and -propriety of his claim to be naturalized. He thought the sentiments of -the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. _Giles_) were highly commendable, when -he said we ought to avoid extremes in politics, and adopt a sober medium -of political reasoning, suited to the steady and rational temper of -Americans, equally removed, on the one hand, from tyranny, and on the -other from anarchy. And he would ask, whether a solemn abjuration of all -foreign allegiance, with proofs of a good moral character, and -attachment to the principles of our Government, would not secure us, as -to the principles of the heart, as thoroughly, without the farce of -renouncing his title, as with it? He considered titles, in this country, -as very empty, unmeaning things; and they would go into disuse of -themselves, having no solid support, either in the habits or -constitution of this country. But, by the Constitution of the United -States, any citizen might receive and enjoy a title from a foreign -prince or sovereignty, and Congress could not prevent it. The words of -the constitution are: - - "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United - States; and no person holding any office of profit or - trust, under them, shall, without the consent of Congress, - accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any - kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." - -Mr. T. supposed it was clear that Congress had no power respecting this -matter, but what was expressly delegated by the constitution, and that -had given them a check only on officers of their own appointment, -leaving every other citizen, not an officer of Government, at liberty to -retain a foreign title if he pleased. And an alien might, even if this -amendment should pass, renounce his title, become naturalized, and in an -hour accept of the same title, or another, from any foreign Prince, and -Congress can make no laws to prevent it. If it be a fault that our -citizens can receive and enjoy titles, it is a constitutional one; -Congress are not blamable for it, but they would be blamable were they -to arrogate powers not given them, upon this or any other subject. Mr. -T. repeated, that there could be no danger in this country from titles; -they were universally considered as trifles, and it would be dignifying -them too much to legislate about them. He asked the gentleman who -brought forward this motion, whether it was not, in a measure, a -departure from his former declaration, of sober, rational temper, in -politics, to insist so much upon its importance as he did? He was sorry -the yeas and nays were insisted upon with so much spirit; it looked like -party, in a very unimportant matter: he did not mean to accuse any man, -or men, and mentioned it with diffidence, but it really struck his mind -in this way. Much had been said about adhering to the constitution -strictly, on former occasions; but, from many things said now, it seemed -as though there was no safety for the people, unless the House of -Representatives absorbed the whole governmental power. Mr. T. said, if -that House should become political cannibals, and attempt to devour both -the other branches of the Legislature, he would oppose it, whether it -was popular or not, for he considered the constitutional checks of the -branches of this Government, upon one another, as containing the most -complete security for liberty that any people could enjoy. If his -construction was a just one, Mr. T. thought the amendment could do no -good; it formed a test which might make hypocrites, but not proselytes: -it stripped an alien for a moment of a trifle, which in the next he -might resume and wear for ever. - -Mr. SEDGWICK.--Has it not been said that there was a party in the United -States, not only for aristocracy, but even for monarchy? Is not the -present a most favorable opportunity for holding up these people to -popular resentment? He was convinced that the gentleman who moved this -amendment had no design of doing any such thing, but that did not lessen -the reality. He said that Mr. GILES had brought gentlemen into a -dilemma, which he did not, or would not see. They had at first opposed -the motion, as trifling, and this they had a right to do. The member -(Mr. GILES) then moved his call for the yeas and nays; and if gentlemen -who had already spoken against the amendment, were now to draw back, and -vote for it, they would betray a disgraceful poverty of spirit. Their -constituents would say that their votes had been given _in terrorem_ of -the yeas and nays. The motives for pushing this call could be nothing -else but to stigmatize members of that House, as wanting to introduce a -nobility, whereas they opposed the amendment on no such account, but -merely because it was not worth their taking up. As to himself, he did -not care. He could not wish to stand better with his constituents than -he actually did. He was well known to them. But, in other quarters of -the continent, it might be said that the Eastern States were represented -by aristocrats. If this be a desirable object, said Mr. S., in God's -name, let gentlemen persist in calling for the yeas and nays. It will be -said, "There go the Eastern aristocrats! They want to import nobility -here, when it can no longer exist in Europe!" Mr. S. said, that, at -first, he gave but little opposition to the amendment, thinking it -frivolous. He repeatedly declared, upon his honor, that he firmly -believed it to be so, and that he had no other reason for opposing it. -If he had been, upon this occasion, warmer than usual, he was sorry for -it; but the mischievous and unconciliating consequences of this call for -the yeas and nays, had hurt him exceedingly. - -Mr. MADISON denied the assertion of Mr. SEDGWICK, that the amendment was -trifling; and the member himself seemed to betray, by his behavior, a -consciousness that he had not promoted conciliation. An abolition of -titles was essential to a Republican revolution, and therefore such an -abolition had been highly proper in France. The sons of the Cincinnati -could not have inherited their honors, and yet the minds of the -Americans were universally disgusted with the institution, and in -particular, in South Carolina; yet a member from that State (Mr. W. -SMITH) has told the House that his constituents were under no fears of -aristocracy, and that they could hear titles without emotion. Even the -Chief Magistrate of South Carolina had told the Cincinnati that these -distinctions ought to be laid aside. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE thought it quite frivolous to spend time upon the motion. -That was all his objection. It had been said that, allowing the -amendment to be trifling, yet it was no harm to make an idle law, and -that therefore it should be agreed to for the sake of conciliation. -Supposing a man to make a will, bequeathing a hundred thousand guineas, -when he was not worth a shilling, there would be one serious effect at -least, for it would make the testator ridiculous. To legislate for the -sake of expressing a sentiment, was very silly, and what he never should -agree to. If Mr. GILES would make an amendment incapacitating all -foreigners whatever from holding, upon any account, a civil office in -America, Mr. H. would agree with him, because he did not want to see any -of them in such offices, and conceived that Americans could legislate -for themselves much better without any such assistance. - -Mr. LYMAN said, that whenever a member of that House called for the yeas -and nays, it was a rule with him to rise and second the motion, because -the people had, upon all occasions, a right to know their votes; and -even if only one member desires the yeas and nays to be taken, Mr. L. -conceived that it ought to be done, as the thing was in itself so highly -proper. Since he had the honor of a seat in that House, therefore, he -had always seconded every call for yeas and nays, that the public might -understand, as fully as possible, what they were about, and how their -votes went. He said that it was extremely improper to ascribe wrong -motives, when gentlemen supported a call for yeas and nays. It was -sacrificing the dignity of the House to cast out such insinuations. When -the call had once been made and agreed to, it would be very mean to -retract it, to gratify any member. The public had always, and without -any exception, a right to know what their Representatives were doing, -and how they were voting, and he, for one, should adhere to the call. - -Mr. W. SMITH said, that he had already put a question which nobody had -answered, and on that account he should now rise and put it again. What -are the emigrant nobility to renounce? When they come into this country, -they possess not one privilege which is not possessed by every body -else. He had expected that the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES,) -when last up, would have explained this matter, but he had not done it. -The great bugbear was, lest a _ci-devant_ Lord may get a seat here, and -that somebody may call him My Lord. But, even after you have got his -renunciation of nobility, if other people choose to give him his titles, -you can neither hinder nor punish them; so that the amendment is, to all -practical intents and purposes, absolutely useless and nugatory. Some -members of this House belong to the order of Cincinnati. If they come -here with badges at their button-holes, can you forbid them? He wished -that gentlemen would show what was to be renounced. There was nothing at -all to renounce. The whole amendment is totally futile. - -Mr. DEXTER then rose, but the House had become so impatient for the -question, that he was heard with difficulty. He only wanted to ask -whether the call for yeas and nays was withdrawn or not? - -Mr. MCDOWELL said that he had already informed the House that he should -insist on the call. - -Mr. AMES then asked, whether it was not competent to put the previous -question, viz: Shall this call be now taken? - -The SPEAKER, in reply, said, that according to his judgment, the -previous question could have been regularly taken upon any topic -whatever, which produced a debate; but the House, by a recent decision, -had determined that the previous question could not be regularly taken -upon an amendment. - -He was then asked, whether the call of yesterday was valid to-day, or if -it was necessary for the members to rise over again? Mr. SEDGWICK was -clearly of this opinion; in which the SPEAKER, after some consideration, -concurred, as some gentlemen had deserted the call, and he, in reality, -did not know whether a fifth part of the members would support a call or -not. - -It was then suggested, that there could not be a second call, if the -first was disappointed; and some gentleman said, that he hoped no member -would insist on a thing so extremely distressing to the feelings of many -members. Several gentlemen had now attempted to speak at the same time, -and the mischievous and unconciliating effects of the call were -enumerated with much emphasis. - -Mr. NEW at last came forward, and declared that he moved for a call. Mr. -MCDOWELL said the same. - -Mr. SEDGWICK then rose again. He appealed to the House, that, since he -had a seat in Congress, he had never troubled them with a call more than -a very few times; and he affirmed, upon his honor, that he never had -moved for the yeas and nays at all, unless he was uncertain how the -votes of the House would go. But the gentlemen who now moved for the -call had not this excuse. They knew very well that they would carry -their point, and that by a large majority; so that the insisting for the -yeas and nays could arise only from a design that gentlemen who voted -against the amendment should be held out to the public as wanting to -introduce a nobility. He owed little to Mr. GILES for having withdrawn -his motion, when others were so ready to renew it. - -Mr. NEW, on hearing these remarks, declared that he should withdraw his -motion, since so much had been said about it. - -Mr. BLOUNT then rose, and said that it was needless to waste time, for -the yeas and nays must and should be taken. - -Twenty-three members seconded his motion, and the SPEAKER declared that -the point was now determined. - -Mr. DEXTER next rose, and observed that he had withdrawn his amendment, -under a hope of conciliation, and that the yeas and nays would not be -taken. But since this request had been refused, he should move it again, -and have the yeas and nays upon that likewise, and before the other. He -went over the beaten ground of the bad consequences of holding members -up to popular resentment. - -Mr. VENABLE said, that if the gentleman were so disposed, he should -willingly try the question at once on this motion, without farther -investigation about it. - -On calling over the names, there were, on the amendment of Mr. -DEXTER--yeas 28, nays 63. - -The amendment of Mr. GILES was then taken up, and determined in the -affirmative--yeas 59, nays 32. - -_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments agreed to, be -recommitted to Mr. MADISON, Mr. DEXTER, and Mr. CARNES. - - -MONDAY, January 5, - -THOMAS SPRIGG, from Maryland, appeared, and took his seat in the House. - - -MONDAY, January 12. - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the -bill from the Senate, entitled "An act to authorize the settlement of -the claim of Samuel Prioleau;" and, after some time spent therein, the -committee rose and reported progress. - -_Defence of the Frontiers._ - -A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, laying -before Congress, for their consideration, the copy of a letter from the -Secretary of War,[57] accompanied by an extract from a memorandum of -James Seagrove, Agent of Indian Affairs. The Message and papers were -read: - -Mr. MURRAY then moved that the Message should be referred to the same -Committee of the whole House, to which had been referred the memorial -from the inhabitants of the South-western Territory. - -Mr. NICHOLAS objected strongly to this motion, as showing too much -deference to the Heads of the Departments. The paper in question ought -not to have been sent to the House at all. - -Mr. MURRAY defended his motion. He inquired how the gentleman proposed -to get information? Was he to manufacture it himself, or in what way -could he better obtain it than from the Heads of the Departments? He had -not, for his own part, that species of jealousy of them which the -gentleman last up had. - -Mr. NICHOLAS repeated his arguments with some warmth. He said that the -letter from the late Secretary at War was not official, but officious. -It had a particular aspect which should forbid its getting any such mark -of attention. It was neither more nor less than a commentary on some of -the proceedings of the last session of Congress. If this was received, -we might expect the table to be heaped with such things. - -Mr. SEDGWICK could really see no reason to reject the motion. The -PRESIDENT had undoubtedly a right to send the communication. The subject -was confessedly of the utmost importance. The member asked, if the House -were to close their understandings, and refuse all information from that -quarter? He repeated that he could see no ground of any sort for -refusing consent to the motion. - -Mr. GILES was equally dissatisfied with the matter of this letter, and -with the manner in which it had been introduced into the House. They -were both equally exceptionable. The letter had come without any call. -It was an Executive comment on a Legislative proceeding. It was a -defence of a measure adopted by the Senate, and it condemned by -implication another of that House. To Mr. G. it was a very extraordinary -paper. The PRESIDENT was not to be supposed, however, answerable for the -propriety of its contents. He should be very unwilling to take any -notice of this paper at all. It had been justly remarked that it was a -comment on transactions of the last session. A section of a bill passed -in the Senate last session, and rejected by the House of -Representatives, was inserted in it, and recommended. This paper might -operate very materially on the deliberations of the House. This was a -very bad precedent. The Executive had nothing to do with any question -depending before the Legislature, and consequently had no occasion to -send such a thing. - -Mr. HOLTEN imagined that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. MURRAY) had -extended his motion too far. It ought to have comprehended only the -taking into consideration the Message of the PRESIDENT. - -Mr. MURRAY complained of the asperity of expression employed by a -gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. NICHOLAS.) Not official but officious, and -the intelligence artificial, were phrases to which he objected. The -gentleman might have higher sources of information than he had. Mr. M. -was willing to take up with information wherever he could get it, and he -could have it nowhere with more propriety than from the national -servants. It was no good reason to reject information merely because we -had not asked for it. Mr. GILES had given a piece of intelligence which -Mr. M. said was to him entirely new, viz.: that when the House wanted -information, it was one of their rules not to refer for it to the Heads -of Departments. The topic was great and important, and the House, before -they rise, must examine in general into the situation of the -South-western frontier, and our terms with the Indians. Mr. M. said, -that the delegate from the South-western territory (Mr. WHITE) would -certainly be glad to obtain the information conveyed in this paper. If -any gentleman would point out any other way by which the House could, -without absurdity, get from the PRESIDENT the information contained in -this letter, Mr. M. should be willing to adopt it. - -Mr. BOUDINOT was entirely satisfied both as to the propriety of the -matter contained in the letter of the Secretary, and as to the manner in -which it had been introduced into that House. That the PRESIDENT had a -right to consult the Heads of Departments, there could be no kind of -doubt. Mr. BOUDINOT then read the following passage from the -constitution: "The PRESIDENT shall be Commander-in-chief of the Army and -Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States. He -may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of -the Executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of -their respective offices." Mr. B. defended the Message in all its -circumstances, and in the most pointed terms. It was perfectly proper, -and peculiarly so at this time. By the constitution, and by the rules -and practice of the House, the PRESIDENT had a right to offer his advice -regarding Legislative acts. - -Mr. W. SMITH had seen much needless jealousy in the House towards Heads -of Departments; and the present he thought a refinement on that side. -There had been two objections to the communication from the Secretary of -War, the one as to the matter, and the other as to the manner in which -it was introduced to the House; as to the latter, it was said to have -been obtruded unasked. In this last objection Mr. S. saw nothing. He -read a precedent from the Journals, which he insisted to be exactly -similar, and where Mr. NICHOLAS himself had been one of a committee -appointed to examine and report. As to the matter, we might as -reasonably object to the Speeches of the PRESIDENT, reminding the House -of business which had been before them, or recommending subjects to -their notice. He considered the objections of both sorts as entirely -unfounded. - -Mr. MADISON recommended the alteration suggested by Mr. HOLTEN, for -restricting the motion of commitment to the Message of the PRESIDENT, -and not to take any notice of the letter from the Secretary, which he -considered as, in itself, extremely improper. It could not be meant as -information, and the House had no occasion to take advice from the -Secretary. The letter itself looked more like a forced thing, than any -which he recollected to have seen since the establishment of the -constitution. The subject, however, was delicate. The PRESIDENT had an -undoubted right to give advice or information in any way which he -thought best. It was totally ill-judged in the Secretary to have -conveyed his opinion in the very words of a clause in a bill that had -passed through the Senate last session, and been rejected in that House. -The communication translated into plain language amounted to this: "The -Senate last session had more wisdom than this House, and it is proper -for this House to reconsider its proceedings, and improve by the -superior wisdom of the Senate." Due respect should, however, be paid to -the Message of the PRESIDENT. It ought to be taken into consideration, -and Mr. M. was not willing to cast obstructions in its way, or to make -needless objections. - -Mr. DAYTON said, that he was for referring the Report of the Secretary -at War, with the PRESIDENT's Message, to the Committee of the Whole, and -that consequently he was against striking out the words which expressed -that intention. If, by omitting to take any notice of the Report of the -Secretary, it was meant to reject the information on account of the -source from which it came, it argued such a degree of jealousy and -distrust as appeared both unreasonable and unconstitutional. If, on the -contrary, the object was not so much to reject it, as, by the manner of -referring the Message, to convey any reproof or disrespect towards the -late Secretary of War, Mr. D. should be still more decidedly averse to -the modification proposed. He lamented it as an unhappy circumstance for -this country, that the gentleman who was lately the Head of the War -Department had thought proper to resign. That gentleman had executed the -complicated and important duties of his office with zeal, fidelity, and -ability, and ought to be protected from any proposition or remark which -glanced unfavorably at him, or might wound his feelings at the moment of -his leaving us. Mr. D. then adduced the Report of the Secretary of War -in 1790, to the PRESIDENT, on the subject of the militia system, as a -striking precedent. The Secretary there informed the PRESIDENT, that he -had submitted to him a plan for the arrangement of the militia. The -PRESIDENT sent a Message with the plan to the House of Representatives. -What were the steps then taken in that parallel case? Was the Message -then alone referred as it is now proposed by some gentlemen? The -journals, on the contrary, prove, that the Message and plan were -referred to the Committee of the Whole. It was possible, Mr. D. added, -that the present Congress might deem themselves wiser than their -predecessors. It was possible that many might think it safest to shut -their ears against all kinds of information from the Heads of -Departments, or even from the PRESIDENT himself. There might be some who -would be willing to free the House of Representatives from certain -obligations, or shackles under which the constitution placed them, by -tearing out a leaf from that instrument, but he ventured to say that it -was too soon yet to attempt it. - -Mr. SMILIE complained of the style of the memorial from the Secretary of -War, and, as a specimen, he read the following passage: - - "It is a melancholy reflection that our modes of population - have been more destructive to the Indian natives than the - conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru. The evidence - of this is the utter extirpation of nearly all the Indians - in the most populous parts of the Union. A future historian - may mark the causes of this destruction of the human race - in sable colors. Although the present Government of the - United States cannot with propriety be involved in the - opprobrium, yet it seems necessary however, in order to - render their attention upon this subject strongly - characteristic of their justice, that some powerful - attempts should be made to tranquillize the frontiers, - particularly those south of the Ohio." - -In reading the above extract, Mr. M. went no farther than to the words -_sable colors_. Mr. S. SMITH desired that he should read on, that the -House might hear that no insinuation was intended, as if the present -Government of the United States had countenanced such ravages. Mr. -SMILIE said, that he knew what came after, but who would compare the -first settlers of North America to the Spaniards, who destroyed in their -mines thousands and millions of the Indians, and whose memory had been -consigned to the execration of centuries? - -Mr. AMES rose. Just when he had begun speaking, there came in a message -from the PRESIDENT by his Secretary. On this, Mr. A. observed, that, -perhaps, while gentlemen were now speaking there might have arisen a new -subject of dispute. Perhaps by the new doctrine, we should reject all -communications from that quarter. The message having been delivered, Mr. -A. went on to remark, that turning loose the American militia to guard -the South-western frontier, was a system of slaughter, of desolation. It -was to make a Potter's field a hundred thousand miles in extent! It was -a system to waste the blood of the white man, and to extirpate the -Indians. The militia were not the people to prevent those kind of -injuries against the Indians which were the cause of hostilities. But -gentlemen who were now so delicate as to the style of memorials, would -do well, if they extended that delicacy to other memorials which had -been presented to that House, and referred by the consent of those very -members to select committees. Papers had been offered to that House, -wherein its conduct had been criminated and reprobated in the most -unqualified language of detestation. Yet gentlemen, on some of these -occasions, showed no resentment. Mr. A. ridiculed the idea of the -present motion as introducing a new and dangerous precedent. The -opposition to it came exactly under that description, for it was a -direct attack upon the principles of the constitution. - -Mr. FITZSIMONS approved of the motion. It had been asked if the -PRESIDENT was responsible for the contents of this Report from the -Secretary of War? Mr. F. did not think so; but if he had not -communicated it, the member would have thought him responsible for the -omission. The PRESIDENT had a right to ask advice from the Heads of the -Departments. Mr. F. never knew a message from the PRESIDENT which -required a reference, that had been refused it. As a matter of course, -as a matter of right, it ought to be referred. - -Mr. MURRAY rose and read that passage in the Report of the Secretary, -which Mr. S. Smith had desired Mr. SMILIE to read, and which he had not -read. [They are inserted both together at full length as above.] - -Mr. NICHOLAS moved an amendment, and which was seconded, for striking -out the latter part of the resolution proposed by Mr. MURRAY. This made -it merely a reference of the Message from the PRESIDENT to the Committee -of the Whole, and omitted all notice whatever of the Report from the -Secretary of War. - -Mr. SEDGWICK really thought this a squeamishness for which he saw no -manner of foundation. - -Mr. GILES arose. He said that a gentleman from Massachusetts had -asserted that some members considered the whole constitution as entirely -in this House. This imputation was a thing of so serious a nature, that -Mr. G. wished the gentleman to point out the person to whom he alluded. -If it respected Mr. G. himself, the assertion was unfounded. It was not -true. He had the highest respect for every branch of the constitution. -This was a charge frequently made by one side of the House. Gentlemen -had called the contents of this paper information. He saw in it nothing -but what the House knew without the assistance of the Secretary. He -considered the report as an effort upon the opinion of this House, as an -attack upon its independence, and that in a very indelicate way. He -thought the report in all respects unworthy of the notice of the House. -He hoped that this paper would not be committed, but that the Message of -the PRESIDENT would be so. - -[The passage in the report repeatedly referred to as having been -borrowed from a bill passed in the Senate, last session, is in these -words: - - "That all persons who shall be assembled, or embodied in - arms, on any lands belonging to Indians, out of the - ordinary jurisdiction of any State, or of the territory - south of the Ohio, for the purpose of warring against the - Indians, or committing depredations upon any Indian town, - or persons, or property, shall thereby become liable and - subject to the rules and articles of war, which are or - shall be established for the government of the troops of - the United States." - -This was a section of a bill which the Senate passed the last session, -entitled "An act for the more effectual protection of the South-western -frontiers," but it was disagreed to by the House.] - -Mr. KITTERA considered this as entirely a dispute about words, or -plainly about nothing at all. Gentlemen from Virginia were more jealous -of the Executive than even the constitution itself. Mr. K. was satisfied -that the PRESIDENT had a right to interfere in the Legislative -proceedings with his opinion and advice. There was neither principle nor -precedent for the amendment of Mr. NICHOLAS. The dispute was merely -about words, because if the Message of the PRESIDENT was referred to a -Committee of the Whole, the report in question would, in any case, be -referred along with it. - -Mr. AMES rose again to make some remarks on the danger of extending too -far the privileges of the House of Representatives over the other House. -The moment that this House is turned into a Convention, there is an end -of liberty. As to impropriety and indelicacy of style, he could wish -that the cognizance of members might extend to memorials addressed to -the House, that we may not have addresses disrespectful to it. He -entirely vindicated the conduct of the PRESIDENT as to this matter, and -saw a peculiar propriety in his having made the communication at present -on the table. - -The question was loudly called for; but Mr. NICHOLAS rose in reply to -Mr. AMES. Would any man call this a communication from the Executive? -Mr. AMES spoke a few words in a low tone of voice. Mr. N. proceeded, -"The gentleman prevaricates." "I prevaricate, sir!" rejoined Mr. A. Mr. -N said, that at best he went off from the point. As to the precedent -produced by Mr. W. SMITH, it was quite inapplicable. It bore no -resemblance or connection to the one before the House. The other adduced -by Mr. DAYTON was, he admitted, in point. But that gentleman would admit -that it occurred in the infancy of the constitution, which was an excuse -for it. He hoped that the amendment would go through. - -Mr. TRACY quoted something which Mr. NICHOLAS had said. That gentleman -immediately answered, that he had been misquoted. I know, said Mr. -TRACY, as well as that gentleman, what he said. Mr. NICHOLAS got up a -second time, and repeated what he affirmed were the words which he had -really spoken. He did not say so before, said Mr. TRACY, but I am -content that he should say so now. I only beg that he may not interrupt -me. As to the motion for striking out one-half of the resolution, Mr. -TRACY looked upon it as out of all propriety. The PRESIDENT had sent a -letter of two lines, enclosing a report from the Secretary of War. To -refer the former without the latter, would be like referring to any -person the superscription of a letter, but adding, at the same time, you -must not look at the inside of it. Mr. T. did not care from whom the -report came. If it contained useful information, that was all he wanted -to know. And, supposing it had been sent from a Democratic society, that -of itself would with Mr. T. be no reason to refuse it a reference. He -then observed how much more deference had been paid by that House to -Democratic societies than was now paid by some gentlemen to the -PRESIDENT. Much care had been taken that a vote of censure should not be -passed on them. It looked as if gentlemen wanted to grasp all power -within this body. The amendment was wrong in point both of principle and -practice. To refer a mere superscription, (for the letter of the -PRESIDENT was nothing more,) would look strange enough. The resolution, -as amended, was in a state of hostility with common sense. - -Mr. LYMAN was in favor of the amendment for striking out the words in -the latter part of the motion. He thought it improper to refer to a -Committee of the whole House the report of the late Secretary of War, -because it was of an amphibious nature. It was not a mere official -statement of supposed facts, but the reasoning on these facts. He was -sensible that precedents could be found on the journals, which -sanctioned a commitment of similar reports; but, for his part, he had -ever thought the practice improper, and he must meet the question as it -appeared to him. He said, that the constitution authorized the PRESIDENT -OF THE UNITED STATES, nay, it made it a duty incumbent on him, to give -information, from time to time, of the state of the Union. He was also -equally required to suggest, for the consideration of the House, -whatever he thought expedient; but there was a most material difference -between communicating information, and argument or inferences deduced -from it. The official information would always, without doubt, be -reports from the different departments, and, therefore, would have the -credit and weight which was due to it; but whenever plans or arguments -were communicated, they should have the responsibility attached to the -signature of the PRESIDENT. What was the case in the present instance? -Had the Executive avowed the plan of the Secretary of War, or his -reasoning? He was persuaded, from the communication itself, that the -PRESIDENT did not at all espouse the report as his own wishes or -opinion; for there was nothing in the Message implying that the report -had been officially required, or that any one sentiment was from the -high authority of the Executive. As to the Secretary of War, Mr. L. had -a respect for him, and believed that he had discharged the duties of his -office with ability and fidelity, but it implied no censure to decline -hearing his arguments. All that the House wanted was facts and -information. They were fully competent to the suitable deductions. As to -the observation of his colleague, that the House were abridging the -powers of the Executive, it was so far from being the case, they were -only reclaiming what had been remitted and disused; and he had no fears -that they would abuse it. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE thought that gentlemen were spending time in a very -trifling way. It is the duty of the House to hear information from every -quarter. He was against the amendment. - -Mr. J. WADSWORTH said, that some gentlemen had been offended at the -comparison in the report between the North American settlers and the -Spaniards. Mr. W. remarked, that if gentlemen would look into two -historians, the one of Virginia and the other of New England, they would -see bad enough work. If the Spaniards, or any other nation in history, -had acted worse, he was much at a loss to comprehend what their -proceedings could have been. As to Pennsylvania, much had been said of -the purchases from the Indians of their lands; but where was the -difference between shooting an Indian and catching him in a trap? And, -as to the conduct of the Pennsylvanians, when they drove the Indians -back to Pittsburg, that was sufficiently cruel. We have murdered them -from the beginning, said Mr. W. As to the question on the amendment, he -knew perfectly well that the PRESIDENT had acted exactly conformable -both to the constitution and the practice of the House. To refuse -committing the report of the Secretary along with the Message, would be -an affront, not to the Secretary, but to the PRESIDENT. - -Mr. MADISON looked upon the expression, as to the Spaniards, as being -extremely exceptionable. It had escaped, perhaps, inadvertently. The -Secretary would not have used it in a report to the House, nor would the -PRESIDENT have employed it, as from himself, in any Message to the -House. Mr. M. was for the amendment. It was natural enough that the -Secretary, when communicating his sentiments in a private manner, should -make use of illustrations for enforcing his opinion that he would not -have adopted in an official paper. - -Mr. PAGE was persuaded that the Report from the Secretary of War -contained nothing new, or, if new, nothing which may not as well be used -when in the hands of members, as when in those of a Committee of the -Whole. If the amendment had been to throw the Message under the table, -more warmth could not have been shown, in charging the opposers of the -motion for reference to a Committee of the Whole with indecency to the -PRESIDENT, and with a design at usurpation of his power, &c. It is said, -that a jealousy has been betrayed by some members of an encroachment on -the privileges of this House. Surely, a most unnecessary and -unreasonable suspicion has also been betrayed by others, of a design in -the gentlemen who supported the motion of Mr. NICHOLAS, to encroach on -the powers of the Executive. Expressions have been used not consistent -with decency and order. Gentlemen have been charged with a factious -spirit, favoring indecent remonstrances, and with slighting and treating -contemptuously the Message from the PRESIDENT. Some members have, at -another time, been charged with speaking, not to the House, but to their -constituents, in order to gain their votes at an approaching election. -Mr. P. said, that his respect for the Government, and for the PRESIDENT, -was equal to that of any man in the House. He was far from wishing to -reflect on the late Secretary of War. Mr. P. had never, by any vote, -censured his conduct, and he entertained no wish for his resignation. -But he was at liberty to think the report given to the PRESIDENT wrong, -the communication of it to the House as unnecessary, and even if -necessary, as sufficiently acted upon when printed and put into the -hands of the members. He might have no doubt respecting the -constitutionality of the Message from the PRESIDENT, or of the report of -the Secretary to him. He might require no precedents from the Journals -to prove that the motion for referring that Message was perfectly in -order. But he might doubt whether the substance of the report was of -such a nature as to require the consideration of the Committee of the -Whole. He might also doubt whether the report was of sufficient -importance to require the most mature consideration. There might be -circumstances attending the manner of its introduction, as some members -allege that there were, which render the report improper to be referred -to a Committee of the Whole. It would be a precedent for referring every -Message, and that would be attended with unnecessary delay. It will be -paying a superfluous compliment. If the information came from the -poorest citizen, and was sufficiently important, he would refer it, but -though it came from the PRESIDENT or Senate, and contained nothing -which, in his opinion, required a commitment, he should vote against it. -Mr. P. was for the amendment of Mr. NICHOLAS. - -Mr. S. SMITH remarked, that the principal objection made by the -gentleman who spoke last, (Mr. PAGE,) to the commitment of the report -was, that it contains nothing new. The observation will apply with equal -justness to a great part of what has been said on the subject before the -House. He wished, therefore, that the question might be immediately -taken. - -The amendment was negatived without a division, but by a very great -majority. The motion, as it originally stood, was then put and carried. - - -TUESDAY, January 27. - -_Reduction of Salaries._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the -motion of the twenty-third instant, "that a committee be appointed to -bring in a bill or bills to amend the act entitled 'An act for -establishing the salaries of the Executive Officers of Government, with -their assistants and clerks;' and an act 'for allowing compensation to -the members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United -States, and to the officers of both Houses;' and to reduce all such -salaries as, in the opinion of the said committee, after having made due -inquiry, ought to be reduced." - -Mr. CLAIBORNE said: A worthy gentleman from Maryland, the other day, -suggested an amendment to the proposition now before you, which I -understood to contemplate the increase of some salaries; and, if that -gentleman can reconcile it to himself and his constituents, let him move -and carry it, if he can. For my part, I am pleased with the proposition -as it is, and yet it may have great imperfections. It is very common for -fond parents to be blind to the imperfections of their own offspring; -and, as this is a production of my own, it is probable that I may be -under the same delusive prejudices, but I hope that cheerful -acquiescence which I have always shown to the majority, has sufficiently -evinced that I am no bigot to my own opinions. I said, the other day, -that I was determined, if the proposition must die, it should be by -assassination; but as, in this, a degree of guilt is implied, and might -be attended with serious consequences to those concerned in it, I -should be satisfied to give it a fair trial, and, if it must die, that -it may be by legal and fair adjudication, or, in other words, after full -and fair discussion of its merits. - -We now have fairly before us a proposition that contemplates a redress -of these grievances, which, since the adoption of the present form of -Government, have been a subject of grievous complaint and heartburning -amongst citizens of the United States. Many of them, and, I believe, a -very great majority, conceive that the exorbitant salaries established -to the Legislative, Executive, Judiciary, and their assistants, are not -consistent with, or can possibly contribute to the existence or -well-being of a Republican Government, which, in its nature, holds out -the idea of equality and justice, but which, in the present mode of -administration, cannot fail to have a direct opposite tendency, inasmuch -as the very profuse salaries that all who have the good fortune to get -places under the pay and influence of the present Administration, if -they make a prudent use of them, must ultimately enrich and place them -in a situation so far above the vast bulk of the citizens, whose -industrious fingers are not permitted a single dip into those very -coffers which have been swelled by filching a little from that -hard-gotten pittance already far inadequate to the necessary but very -ordinary subsistence of their families, as at last to endanger the very -existence or shadow of this glorious and dear-bought Government, that -has already raised the drooping and once-dejected heads of the poor -American citizens, who now glory more in having thrown off that -subordination that was assumed and exercised over them under the late -detestable Monarchical Government, by their rulers, or public officers, -than even in their lives and fortunes. Men begin to know the inherent -rights of human nature. They have dipped into and tasted a little of the -sweets of political regeneration, and, amongst all classes of your -citizens, you may discover a zeal that amounts to enthusiasm, that lives -and burns and grows almost to a prodigy. Instances are not wanting, sir, -to evince that thousands of those who were not fond of this Government -at its adoption, are now, on all occasions, ready to step forth in its -support, and the laws that are passed consistent therewith. But this -does, by no means, argue that they will submit for ever to repeated -abuses of the Government, which may ultimately tend to its overthrow; -and exorbitant salaries, with other profuse appropriations of the public -money, at a time when the nation is groaning under an immense weight of -foreign and domestic debt, which (calculating upon the blessings of -peace, and of course, a very increasing revenue, not reasonably to be -calculated on so long a time,) it is agreed on all hands will take a -term not less than thirty-two years to extinguish. Here I shall again be -told, that the price of house-rent, and every other necessary of life, -has increased, and may continue to increase, so as to drive all your -officers out of your service. To this I beg leave to answer, that, if -you continue such high salaries, or increase them, as in some instances -it is asked, and because of the present enhanced price of the -necessaries of life, I think the evil will increase in proportion to the -immense sum of money that you throw into circulation, for a redundancy -of that, or any thing else, will always diminish the value; and, if the -present custom of disbursing the public money is persisted in, the whole -wealth of the United States must shortly centre in and about -Philadelphia! But, sir, by the adoption of public economy, we may -shortly become able to obviate this great evil, and make our -disbursements more diffusive, by paying out money to those who have -demands upon your justice, distributed over the United States, if any -but those who reside around the seat of Government have any demand upon -your justice or goodness. I am apprised that the proposition is a very -unpopular one here, and that many will perhaps knit their brows at me; -but, sir, when I entered into public life, it was without any cringing -views. I meant not to court smiles, or fear frowns, and I had no doubt -but I should meet my share of both. When I gain the former by proper -conduct, I have pleasure in it; when the latter by improper conduct, I -am sorry for it. But it will be much to be lamented if ever we see the -day when the people shall be suffered to complain from year to year of -any grievance, and their Representatives shall be ashamed, or afraid, to -make those grievances known, or ask redress, lest they be laughed out of -countenance, or lose favor at Court. But so hardy am I, if you prefer -that expression, that, while I have the honor of a seat in this House, -none of those considerations shall ever deter me from stepping forth in -their behalf; but, be the result of this proposition what it may, I now -warn you against evils that _may_ come, as you have been heretofore -warned of evils that _have_ come, for the obligations of power and -submission are reciprocal. It is as much your duty to pass wholesome -laws, as it is the duty of the people to obey them. And now, having done -my duty, I shall take my seat, content to abide the result, but hope a -committee will be appointed. - -Mr. NICHOLAS declared that he would be very willing to vote for the -appointment of such a committee, if he could see any good purpose to be -derived from it, or if the gentleman who laid the resolution on the -table could give him any information that tended to prove its -expediency. For his own part he had but a small family, and of that he -had left one-half behind him in Virginia, yet he found that his -allowance as a member of the Legislature was barely sufficient for -supporting this half of his family, though he lived with as much economy -as he ever had done in his life. He was certain that he should not take -one shilling of public money home with him to Virginia. He requested -gentlemen to remember that it was not the present Congress who had given -six dollars per day to themselves, but that it had been fixed by their -predecessors, and fixed at a time when living was fifty per cent. -cheaper than it is now. - -Mr. BOUDINOT observed, that he should not have troubled the committee on -this question, had it not been for several considerations particularly -applicable to himself. He was as impartial on the present debate as any -member on the floor. After the close of this session of Congress, he -never expected to receive a farthing of public money again, and -therefore no interest of his own could sway his judgment improperly to -object against the resolution on the table. He had been among the number -of those members who originally were for fixing the compensation of -members of Congress at a less sum than six dollars; not because he -thought it beyond the amount of their expenses, but, from an idea of the -then deranged state of the finances, and that, if sacrifices were to be -made, they should begin with this House. He appealed to his uniform -conduct for six years past, to prove that he had always opposed an -increase of salaries or other public expenses, when the interest of the -Union did not require it. He did not doubt that the gentleman who -brought forward this resolution thought he was doing his duty in -advocating it; and Mr. B. thought it was equally the duty of the -committee to be convinced that they were not wasting their time in -unnecessarily proceeding in business, without having some foundation for -rational inquiry. - -Mr. B. did not doubt but there were uninformed individuals, who might -object to six dollars per day; but he was confident that the -well-informed among the citizens of the United States, and those who -reflected on the subject, would think (at the present day at least) it -was not more than would barely pay the reasonable expenses of gentlemen -who attended to their duty here in a proper manner. Almost every article -of consumption was from twenty to thirty per cent. higher now than it -was at the commencement of the Government. - -The Constitution of the United States, as the act of the people and the -public voice, contemplated a compensation to the members of Congress. -Did not this mean something more than the bare discharge of their -expenses? Yet Congress had not gone beyond it. - -When Congress sat at New York, Mr. B. said that he was in a situation -more favorable in point of expense than any gentleman on the floor, who -did not reside in that city. He boarded with a near relation, and was in -a manner in his own family; and, although he paid the usual price of -boarding as at other places, yet there were a thousand nameless small -articles which saved him many advances. He was within sixteen miles of -his own family, from whence he received many things that prevented his -laying out money. During three sessions, he kept an exact and faithful -account of his expenditures, and, at the end of that time, the balance -was but 43s. 4d.; but on which side of the question his memory did not -allow him to say. At present, he was also under very peculiar -advantages, yet he was confident that, at the end of the session, he -should not have any balance in his favor from his compensation as a -member. Mr. B. appealed to every gentleman's own knowledge, and -particularly to the gentleman who made the motion, if he thought that -what he received would more than pay his expenses. - -Gentlemen were often crying out against an Aristocracy in this country; -yet measures of this kind tended to establish one, by reducing the -compensation of members, so that no citizen but the rich and affluent -could attend as a Representative in Congress. This certainly was the -most effectual way of bringing about a dangerous Aristocracy in the -United States. Should not men of abilities, though in the middle walks -of life, be encouraged to come forward and yield their services to their -country, without being dependent on any person or set of men whatever? -Is it not sufficient that their time and talents are given to the -public? Must they pay their expenses too? - -Mr. B. was aware that the resolution proposed related to the officers of -Government as well as members of Congress, but he had confined his -remarks to the last, as the part of the subject he was best acquainted -with. He begged gentlemen to look around and point out the public -officer who received more than a reasonable reward for his services. -Professional men, of the first abilities, were absolutely necessary to -carry on the public business; and could any one, fit for his office, be -shown who could not do full as well, if not much better, in the exercise -of his profession in private life than he did in the public service, if -pecuniary matters were his only object? In short, (Mr. B. said,) this -House was placed between Scylla and Charybdis. The public officers were -complaining, and even resigning, for want of sufficient compensation for -their services; on the other hand, an attempt was now made to reduce -their salaries still lower, on the supposed clamors of the people. Mr. -B. did not believe they could be denominated those of the people; -neither did he see any evidence of the fact. He did not consider the -complaints of a few individuals as the public voice. Ought not the -gentlemen to come forward with some kind of calculations or estimates to -have shown that certain salaries were too high, or more than the -services performed were entitled to? This had not been done; but the -committee were urged, at this important moment, to proceed to an -inquiry, which every gentleman on the floor already knew as well as he -could do by the most labored investigation. He therefore concluded that, -to agree to the resolution, would be a waste of the short time that yet -remained of the session, and an unwise measure. Mr. B. would have -contented himself with joining the committee in a silent vote on this -subject, but he thought the observations made in support of the measure -ought to receive some answer, if not to convince the committee, yet to -satisfy their constituents that there could exist no necessity for a -present inquiry of this nature. - -Mr. W. SMITH said, that the resolution was, in its present shape, so -extremely vague, that one did not know how to give it a definition or a -vote. Different objects were lumped together. If, by an inquiry, the -gentleman meant to examine into the wages of members of this House, it -was quite needless to appoint a committee, because every member can at -this moment speak for himself. But Mr. S. did not consider the present -time as the most proper for beginning to reduce salaries, when, within -the last twelve months, there had been three resignations, viz: the -Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the -Treasury, and all chiefly for one reason, the smallness of the salary. I -have no doubt (said Mr. S.) of there being complaints, and, if the -salary was reduced to three dollars per day, there would be still -complaints, as we see is the case with the members of the Legislature of -Pennsylvania. He only wished that the committee would rise, and he -should then vote in the House that they might not have leave to sit -again. The mover of this resolution had mentioned the danger of meeting -with reproaches from the people, who thought their salaries too high. -Mr. S. saw very little in this matter, because the people who railed at -the salary of six dollars per day, were only anxious to get in -themselves, and embraced this topic as an expedient of ousting those -members whom they wanted to succeed. - -Mr. GOODHUE wished to ask Mr. CLAIBORNE one question, "Whether he found -himself growing rich?" - -Mr. SEDGWICK saw no occasion for rising, because the committee were -perfectly competent at this moment to determine the question. - -Mr. RUTHERFORD was for reducing the salaries by one dollar per day, and -one dollar every twenty-five miles that the members had to travel. This -would be a reduction of one hundred dollars per day, which would be much -better bestowed upon the innocent widow of the veteran, who had fallen -in the service of his country. - -Mr. PAGE said, that he did not think the resolution, as it was worded, -was a proper subject for discussion in that place; for the House, and -not a committee, could properly resolve that committees should be -appointed. However, as the resolution had been submitted by the House to -the consideration of the Committee of the Whole, it must be examined; -but, as to the object of it, that he thought was more properly before -the committee, as proposed by the resolution; for, as I have remarked on -other occasions, if, instead of discussing a question fully, and -collecting the sense of all the members in a Committee of the Whole, it -be referred to a committee of one member from each State, that committee -might be unanimous in favor of a resolution, against which, eighteen -members for Virginia, and a proportionate number from other States, -might vote; or, by the weight of that committee, the resolution might be -carried, which could not have passed had it been fully and freely -discussed in the House. Here, then, my colleague's question should be -examined, as I cannot say (as has been said by one of them) that I had -no hand in fixing the salaries and pay of the officers of Government and -members of Congress, having actually voted at New York for them as they -now stand. I think I may, with propriety, give my opinion respecting it. -And I am clearly of opinion, sir, that the question arises from a -misapprehension of the subject to which it is applied; for there cannot -be a greater mistake than to suppose that parsimony in a Republic is -necessary to its support. A certain degree of economy is so; but -parsimony, applied to the salaries of public officers, and the -Representatives in particular, may be ruinous to the interests of a -Republic. Should the salaries be so low that men of small fortunes -cannot afford to serve their country, it must be deprived of their -assistance, and we must accept of the services of the rich, who, to have -their wills, though low, will serve even without pay; or, the State will -be served by artful demagogues, by ready, designing men, who may, in -pursuit of profit as well as popularity, cut out places for themselves -and friends, producing at length confusion and anarchy, or, at least, -such a bungling system of legislation as will cost more time and money -to rectify their blunders than the most extravagant salaries could -amount to. What true Republican could wish to exclude from a seat in -Congress a physician, lawyer, merchant, farmer, or any other person -possessed of such well-known abilities and virtues as to attract the -attention and respect of a district which might wish to intrust its -interests to him as a Representative? Or, rather, who ought not to -desire that, as all offices are open to all, that the son of the poorest -citizen might be enabled, if qualified to fill a seat here or elsewhere, -to do it without sacrificing his private interest? Is it reasonable to -expect that men should sacrifice domestic ease and the interests of -their families to serve their country? It is not just to require it. -Human nature, except on great and trying occasions, cannot obey such a -requisition. My colleague says that he is not a man of fortune; but, has -he not a profession by which he can make more than by his attendance on -this House? If not, he has not a right to require such a sacrifice of -any other person's time and talents. The constitution, far from -requiring any thing like it, demands that compensation shall be made for -all services; and who will desire less for services than a mere -subsistence for a person whilst actually employed in such service? I am -sure that less than the present pay of members of Congress would not, in -their present situation, be a subsistence. I recollect that, when the -House of Representatives were debating, in the first session, at New -York, whether their daily pay should be four, five, or six dollars, I -affirmed that the expenses of the members where I boarded required that -it should be six, that the State of Virginia having once allowed her -delegates to Congress eight dollars, and never less than six, when she -bore the whole expense, could not object to her Representatives -receiving that sum, when divided, as it was, amongst the States, and -spread out over the various duties and taxes of the United States. I -asked those, as I might ask my colleague now, who of our constituents -could calculate what he would save by any proposed reduction of our pay? -I have long suspected, sir, that Republics have lost more by parsimony -than they were aware of, and that a misapprehension of some practices in -ancient Republics has been artfully kept up, so as to favor Aristocracy -and Monarchy. The British Parliament has now no pay; but have they been -as independent as their countrymen wished them under the British -Government? - -In reply to the member who had objected to the pay of the SPEAKER, and -the difference between the pay of members of the two Houses, Mr. P. -said, that whoever would consider the duty of the SPEAKER; his long -confinement to the chair; his painful attention to every word spoken in -the House, and his responsibility for the correctness of the -journals--an examination of which must take up much of his time--would -surely not think his pay too great. As to the difference between the pay -of a Senator and Representative, he had voted for it, from a belief that -a Senator having more services to perform than a Representative, had a -right to more pay. The Senate not only have to originate bills as this -House has, and to revise and amend bills sent from hence, and often to -correct the careless errors they contain, but to make themselves -acquainted with the law of nations, and to be prepared to judge of -treaties; and also of offences brought before them by impeachments. When -the Senators may have gone through the labors of a long session, and the -Representatives are returning home, they may be called upon to consider -certain nominations to offices, or certain treaties; and at another time -to try certain impeachments. Besides all this, the age of a Senator must -be such, by the constitution, that it is probable that his family is -larger, and his pursuits in life more fixed and profitable than those of -a Representative, who may be elected when only twenty-five, and -therefore his services must require higher compensation. As to the -PRESIDENT and VICE-PRESIDENT's salaries, I voted for a larger sum than -was allowed to either, and thought that the disproportion between them -was too great. With respect to the judges, I still think their salaries -too small, and so should every one think who will consider the vast -importance of their office; the labor of both mind and body which it -requires; the laborious course of study through which a man must have -gone to be qualified for it, and the lucrative employment such a one -must have given up to undertake it. In short, I do not recollect a -salary which I think too high. And I must repeat it, that I do not think -that large salaries in a Republic can injure it; but that small, -inadequate salaries may overturn a Republic. - -I am sorry that the question has been brought before us respecting our -own pay this session, because the elections in Virginia are not over; it -would become us much better another session, if re-elected, to reduce -it, than to do so when we may be left out. Besides, if I vote for a -reduction, I may be suspected of courting popularity; and, if against -it, of despising the opinions of my constituents, if they have adopted -those which some members tell us prevail amongst their constituents. I -do not like to be in such a dilemma, nor to have my independence -unnecessarily tried. I wish, as the question is before us, that it may -be fully debated here, and even referred to the further consideration of -a select committee; because I think the opinions even of a single member -and his district should be treated with respect; and that when they have -been fairly proved to be founded in error, there will be an end of -complaints, and an acquiescence in the decision of this House. - -Mr. GILLESPIE proposed an amendment, the scope of which was, that a -committee should be appointed to examine and report whether any and what -alterations were necessary in the act fixing salaries to the officers -under Government. He suggested this amendment from no motive whatever -but what was fair. There had been, and there still was, a degree of -clamor upon the subject, and it was the duty of the House to pay -attention to the voice of the public, whether right or wrong. If, upon -investigation, it should appear that the salaries were not higher than -they ought to be, then the report of the committee would be the best -method for stopping the public clamor. - -Mr. CLAIBORNE hoped that the committee would not rise, but decide the -point. He trusted that no gentleman would again point at him, and say -that the motion came out of his brain. There was not one officer under -Government whom he would point out and say, that such an officer had too -high a salary. He had expectations that this discussion, by bringing -forward the observations of several gentlemen, would in some degree -satisfy the people, and that there would be no more pointing out with a -finger and saying, "_There goes a six-dollars-a-day man_." - -Another member observed, that it was the duty of the House to attend to -the voice of their constituents, and for this reason, he should vote for -a committee. He would mention what he had always considered as a most -odious distinction, the additional dollar per day, which is to be paid -to the Senate from and after the 4th of March next. [The reader will -observe, that by the act, members of the Senate were to have seven -dollars per day, but the additional dollar was not to commence till the -lapse of six years,[58] when all the Senators of the first Congress had -gone out.] There was another thing for which he never could see any -reason, and that was the giving of the twelve dollars per day to the -SPEAKER. - -Mr. GILES was perfectly convinced that the allowance to the members is -small enough already. The saving of a dollar per day suggested by Mr. -RUTHERFORD, would be but little, and it was beginning at the worst of -resources. The pay ought to be such as would bring persons of middling -circumstances into the House; persons neither too high in life nor too -low. If the pay was greatly reduced, none but very rich people could -afford to give their attendance, and if too high, a seat in the House -might be an object to persons of an opposite description. Formerly the -State of Virginia allowed eight dollars per day to the members of its -Legislature. This sum had since been reduced to six dollars. Mr. G. -mentioned this to show that in the practice of individual States, there -might be found a precedent for the allowance to members of Congress. He -was for voting directly. Mr. G. said, that there was a country from -which America had copied a great deal, and very often too much; a -country which still had a very pernicious influence in the United -States. The members of the British House of Commons received no wages, -while the officers of State had immense salaries. It was however -understood, that the British House of Commons were very well paid for -the trouble of their attendance. Mr. G. did not wish to see scenes of -that kind in this country. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE hoped that the House would have done with this thing -immediately, as it had now answered all the purposes expected from it, -and he trusted that all motions of that sort which had an eye to certain -operations out of the House, would meet with the same fate. - -The motion was negatived by a very great majority. - -[Before the adjournment, the SPEAKER suggested to the House a -considerable inconvenience, occasioned by gentlemen being introduced, -and occupying such parts of the House without the bar as were -particularly allotted for the use of the House, and of which several -members complained. There was often so great a crowd that members could -scarce walk round when they had papers to present to the Chair. The -passage was often obstructed when messages were to be delivered, and -frequently there was no room left for the members when they wished to -confer privately with each other. As he did not conceive himself -authorized to give special directions without orders from the House, he -would take the liberty to suggest to the members of the House, when -introducing their friends, the propriety of placing them under the -galleries to the left of the Chair, and reserving the space to the -right of the Chair for the members of both branches of the Legislature, -the diplomatic gentlemen, judges, and other officers of Government; -which was generally acquiesced in.] - - -THURSDAY, January 29. - -AARON KITCHELL, returned to serve in this House, as a member for the -State of New Jersey, in the room of Abraham Clark, deceased, appeared, -produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House; the oath to -support the Constitution of the United States being first administered -to him by Mr. SPEAKER, according to law. - -_Thomas Person and others._[59] - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. COBB -in the chair, to resume the consideration of the claims of Thomas Person -and others, to certain lands lying on the frontier of the State of North -Carolina, and ceded by the Commissioners of the United States to the -Indians. - -Mr. GILLESPIE took up the subject in the same stage in which it stood -before he spoke the preceding day. He said, let us examine the conduct -of other States. Did not New York dispose of lands within her chartered -limits, and from the sales become wealthy, as she has large sums in the -funds? The State of Virginia took advantage of the purchase of Henderson -and Company, for that part now called Kentucky, although they now -exclaim that the purchase was unlawful; yet, unlawful as it was, it has -extinguished the Indian title to those lands. Now, if the purchase of -Henderson and Company had this effect on the north-east side of Walker's -line, which divides Kentucky from the South-west Territory, is it not -just that it should have the same effect on the south-west side, when -made by the same persons, on the self-same day? And surely the rights of -North Carolina must be at least equal to those of Kentucky, in every -thing except that of power. But is Congress going to legislate by -strength of arm? I hope not. It has been admitted, by some who have -spoken on the subject, that the citizens of North Carolina have a right -of redress by law, and by others, against her own Legislature. To the -first of these I ask, against whom is the suit to commence? Are our -citizens, thus bereft of their property, to be compelled to litigate -suits at law for property taken for public use, and for which they have -a just claim against the United States; or have they not an equal right -to compensation for that which the United States, by their agent, took -from them, as other citizens are entitled to, for property piratically -taken on the high seas, by the robbers of Britain? And do we, in the -last case, say to these unfortunate sufferers, commence suits against -those who have injured you? No. Government has taken the litigation in -hand, at her own cost. Let her do so with the citizens of North -Carolina. Or, will the Government of the United States support the claim -of the injured against her own Executive? Will they do it against the -State of North Carolina? They cannot; and from what has been said in -this matter, it is plain that, as the Government of the United States -has converted the property of the citizens of North Carolina to the uses -of her Government, compensation ought to be made out of the public -purse, as the contrary would, on her part, destroy that bond of union -between her, as the sovereign power of the United States, and her -citizens, and as not only bound to govern with justice, but also to -protect them from all manner of injury, as well domestic as foreign. Mr. -G. apologized, that he was without authority in the House, but would -pledge his reputation that what he should advance, if not verbatim, -should be in substance with the author quoted: - - "It is admitted by many, that the sovereign authority - possesses a power, under the laws of eminent domain, to - alienate the property of the subject, for the benefit of - the Commonwealth, by impending public necessity against - private injury." But, without doubt, they "that have lost - or sacrificed their property to the public safety in such - extremity, ought to have satisfaction made, as far as - possible, by the Commonwealth. Any thing short of this - would destroy the reciprocity between the sovereign and - subject."--_Puffendorf_, _b._ 8, _c._ 5, § 7. - -But can public necessity be urged in the present case to justify this -kind of political robbery? I answer, no. If the Indians are to be kept -in peace by bribes, why not, in this, as in other similar cases, by -presents and pecuniary rewards? Is it not an indignity to the United -States to purchase peace from an Indian nation, at the expense of a part -of her citizens, whose resources at best were scanty, and are, by this -and other speculations, almost annihilated? Surely it is. And, let me -add, is it not an invariable axiom with all authors on Government, - - "That all sacrifices of property made by individuals for - the public benefit or accommodation, should or ought to be - paid out of the public revenue, and that one should not - bear more of the burden than another."--_Burlamaqui_, _b._ - 8, _c._ 5, § 27, 28. - -Is it not, then, obvious to all, who will reflect on this subject, that -compensation is due to these individuals, whose property has been -wrested from them for Government purposes? The same author observes, in -the 38th section of the same chapter: - - "That as no subject can assume any part of the sovereign - power without the consent of the whole, neither can any - sovereign authority deprive the subject of his right and - property, nor substitute another sovereign over him without - his consent." - -The public is in nothing more essentially interested than in the -protection of every individual's private rights, as modelled by the -municipal law in this and similar cases. The Legislature can, and -frequently does interpose, and compel the individual to acquiesce. But -how does it interpose and compel? Not by stripping the individual of his -property in an arbitrary manner. No. But by giving him full and ample -indemnification for the injury sustained; for there must be an end of -all social commerce between man and man, unless private possessions be -secured from unjust invasions. Thus, the protection of a State, in every -precedent to be found in books that treat of the fundamental laws of -civil society, or in the resolutions and acts of the British Parliament, -means restitution, indemnity, or compensation. _Grotius_, when treating -of the right of the sovereign authority to give up or take the property -of the subject, calls it "restitution, satisfaction;" _Burlamaqui_, -"indemnity, and indemnifying the subject for the injury sustained;" and -_Vattel_, "recompense out of the public money." It is farther observed, -that cases of this kind operate, like property thrown into the sea to -save the ship, by making an estimate of the loss, and causing an equal -average on the property saved, which each owner is bound to pay. So -that, from the fullest conviction, I am of opinion the citizens of North -Carolina are entitled to the relief reported by the select committee, -and that strict justice requires we should comply with it; for, as I -have said, in nothing is the Government of the United States more -concerned, in a superlative degree, than in doing strict justice to her -citizens, as of the last importance in preserving the affections of the -people to the Government. Vacancies in our departments, civil, judicial, -or military, may be supplied as well, but to restore the confidence of a -people borne down with oppression, exceeds comprehension. It is like -attempting to return from the grave--is without precedent, and is vain -labor indeed. At different epochs it has shook the foundations of -monarchies, and caused tyrants to tremble and atone for their crimes -with their lives; and, as I said at an early stage of the debate, if -usurpers, tyrants, and despots have been compelled to do justice by this -undeniable law of nature, shall the Government of the United States, -founded on the pure principles of Democracy, be less just? Surely not. -Have we received a power to exercise in wantonly oppressing those who -gave it? God forbid! Therefore, let it ever be impressed on our minds, -that justice exalteth a nation. The House, I hope, will pardon my -detaining them, at a time when every moment is precious. But the duty I -owe to my injured constituents forbids silence, and will, I hope, be a -sufficient apology. I shall, therefore, submit to the judgment of the -House, not doubting but justice will be done. - -Mr. NICHOLAS was satisfied that the purchasers of the lands had a claim -either against the United States or the State of North Carolina. Much -had been said about the Indian right; but the Indians never had been fit -to occupy these lands. It could never have been the design of nature -that these people should be termed the possessors of land which they -were incapable to enjoy. He was, upon the whole, on the side of the -claimants, though he enumerated some of the difficulties that would -attend an attempt to please all parties. - -Mr. W. SMITH had found much difficulty in forming his opinion upon this -question. He had at first been somewhat disposed against the claimants, -but at last, after full deliberation, he was convinced of the justice of -giving them redress. He requested the particular attention and candor of -the House. The United States were, in this case, made a judge in their -own cause, and therefore it became more their duty to examine every part -of the subject with the more accuracy. Mr. S. then began a distinct -detail of the circumstances in the present dispute. Previous to the year -1776, North Carolina was a British Colony, and the British Crown -considered itself as entitled to bestow grants of territory. In that -year, North Carolina became a sovereign State, and consequently she -conceived herself as succeeding to the right of the British Crown, and -as having a right to bestow grants in the same way as the Kings of Great -Britain had done. This claim was asserted in her general Declaration of -Rights, and it was incorporated into her constitution. When North -Carolina entered into the Union, all the Legislative rights of the State -were preserved, and, by a necessary inference, her title to the lands -comprehended in her original charter. In 1783, the State opened an -office to sell the absolute right of such lands as had not been disposed -of. In 1789, North Carolina ceded the right of jurisdiction to the -United States, but she reserved her own Legislative rights, and -consequently her right to sell the lands within her own territory; and -in disposing of the lands in question, the State did not intend merely -to sell the right of pre-emption from the Indians, but the absolute -title to the lands. Mr. S. read a part of the constitution of North -Carolina, in order to explain what degree of legislation the State had -conceded to the Federal Government, and what part she reserved to -herself; and he was clearly of opinion, that the disposal of the lands -had been reserved. In 1783 the State offered these lands for sale. In -1786, the Commissioners of the United States assigned a great part of -them to the Indians. In 1788, the Legislature of North Carolina declared -that they would support the purchasers. The grand question now is, did -the State, by acceding to the confederation, give up her right of -legislation? She gave up her right to make Indian treaties, but reserved -that of legislation, because, as above observed, it formed a part of her -constitution, which was understood to continue unviolated. These lands -were bought with certificates, which it was alleged, on the other side, -would purchase nothing else. If the certificates would purchase nothing -else, it was proper at least that they should have been restored to -their first owners, who might have subscribed them to a part of the -public debt of the United States. They were certainly entitled either to -their land or their certificates. These certificates, which were paid -into the Treasury of North Carolina, were those of the United States. If -the owners had only a pre-emption right, Mr. S. insisted that the -certificates should be returned. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this was quite a new fact to him, and if it was -as stated, there was no necessity for Legislative interference at all. -The State of North Carolina had only to come forward and subscribe them -to the Treasury. - -Mr. W. SMITH explained, that when delivered into the Treasury of North -Carolina, they had been cancelled. After this they were again ordered to -be made current by the subscriptions of the officers of the State, and -in that shape they were offered to the Commissioners of Loans, who -refused to accept them. The exact amount of the certificates could still -be ascertained, as well as the names of the persons to whom they -belonged. They had been cancelled, but not destroyed. - -Mr. BOUDINOT imagined that Mr. SMITH had furnished a new and forcible -argument against his own cause. This claim of North Carolina to sell the -lands was wrong, and this doctrine had been the cause of all the -disputes in which the Federal Government has been engaged. The Crown of -Britain had never pretended to any right of this kind, nor ever thought -it had a title to any lands till they were first purchased from the -Indians. The question before the committee was, have the United States -taken away any claim which the purchasers of these lands had? And the -answer is, that the United States have not. The State of North Carolina -only had a right to sell the privilege of pre-emption. This was the only -right which the purchasers obtained, and this right they still possess. -As to the certificates, they were not those of the United States, but -those of North Carolina. They were not Continental certificates, and for -that reason Continental officers would not accept them; but North -Carolina has since brought these certificates into her account against -the General Government. The commissioners, in 1786, had done a very -great service to North Carolina, by settling a line of boundary, and -putting an end to the Indian war. He thought that the best way would be -for the claimants to apply to the Executive, and agree among themselves -to extinguish, by an interference of that kind, the Indian right. This -would be much better than for the House to involve itself in the -purchase of an immense tract of land, at an expense of seven or eight -hundred thousand dollars, (or how much more, Mr. B. could not tell,) -when there was so much occasion for the money to pay the national debt. -He again declared that he should think it the best way to obtain the -good offices of the Executive in extinguishing the Indian right. The Six -Nations possessed part of the territory of Pennsylvania. This State also -may apply to the General Government for redress, if North Carolina were -to get payment for these lands. The State of New York may do so, for the -same reasons as North Carolina. This would be involving the Government -in an endless labyrinth. He was as unwilling as any gentleman in the -House to interfere with the rights of the Legislature of North Carolina. -But he did not wish to see the House going blindfold into the business. -The United States have too much land already. - -Mr. KITTERA.--The certificates must have been given in by North Carolina -to the United States. She denied the right of the commissioners, in -1786, to make Indian treaties, but now that right is given up. He agreed -with Mr. BOUDINOT as to his observations on Pennsylvania. Georgia also, -he said, had about sixty millions of acres within her chartered limits. -The business would never have an end, if the General Government was to -interfere in all these cases. - -Mr. SCOTT.--Has not this Government a right to restrain every wild-goose -excursion into the woods? If it has not, the Union must fall prostrate -at the feet of every wild speculator. Pennsylvania, at a great expense, -made preparations for an establishment at Presqu'Isle. The ground had -been bought at a great expense from the United States. Yet for the sake -of general peace, the settlement had been stopped. - -Mr. MCDOWELL denied that the two cases corresponded, for the lands at -Presqu'Isle had not been given to the Six Nations. - -Mr. BOUDINOT differed from the last speaker. He did not think that any -thing farther had been done against the interest of North Carolina than -against that of Pennsylvania. - -Mr. BLOUNT denied that the Indians ever occupied the lands in question, -or were fit to occupy them, in any proper sense of the word. To walk -across a country, and to shoot in it, was different from an occupation. -But, besides, the Creeks and Cherokees were not the only tribes who had -hunted there. It had been said yesterday that these lands gave rise to -speculation. Mr. B. wished that it had done so, for in that case the -certificates would all have been paid by this time. There was no -difficulty in funding Southern certificates, when once they got into the -hands of Northern speculators. Mr. B. thought himself entitled to -receive back from the United States the money which he had paid into the -Treasury of North Carolina for these lands. - -Mr. MURRAY requested the favor of any gentleman to inform him, whether -the lands in question were possessed and occupied, in the more civilized -sense of the terms, by the white people? He believed they were not. Had -they been in peaceable possession, living on, and cultivating the lands, -that circumstance would form a very interesting motive in his mind in -favor of the indemnity that was asked. But, in fact, they never were -possessed of any right but that which North Carolina could give -them--the pre-emption right; that right they now possessed as fully as -they did at the time of the cession to the United States. [Mr. CARNES -rose, and informed him, that many white people who had begun farms were -driven off their lands, and reduced to great distress by the -proceedings of the commissioners.] Mr. M. said, an argument struck him -of some weight--that if the claim be gratified, the claimants will be in -a better situation now than they would have been if the cession had not -been made; for North Carolina could not have given them absolute -possession but by force of arms. This she would not have a right to do, -under this Confederation, nor under the constitution, as no one State -can make war. But the claimants can ask nothing more of the United -States than they could have had accomplished for them by the State of -North Carolina. A new doctrine, resulting from the Revolution, must be -admitted as a ground of reasoning, when Indian, unconquered territory, -is before us. The Provinces had power, as individual bodies--which -States, as such, have not--the right of making war, and gaining -possession of Indian territory by conquest. So it was, that a province -could, from its own separate resources, make war on Indians, and pay -individually the expense. But when the great contest for independence -came on, all the States were, in fact, principal confederated bodies, -long before they signed the paper of confederation. The doctrine, which -suited such a body of States, was, that whatever might be gained by the -joint efforts and expense of all, should be the property of all, -jointly; and he thought that every principle of sound justice warranted -him in applying the doctrine, so far as to say, that whatever might be -the chartered limits of each province, while dependent, yet the moment -of the joint contest was that in which the true limits of a State were, -as far as property in land went, confined to that boundary which was -really located, occupied, and peaceably holden within the limits. To say -that the State had a right more positive than the pre-emptive one, to -lands actually occupied and defended by hostile tribes of Indians within -the chartered limits, admits a principle, that, if put into action, -tended necessarily to violate the great principle of the Confederation, -and of the present constitution, which divests the individual States of -the right to make war; as the State to make good any sales she might -make within the hostile territory, would be obliged to make war on the -tribes to dispossess them. The lands in question were in this situation. -They were occupied by Indian tribes, and were never in possession of -North Carolina. The gentleman from that State seems to doubt the -occupancy of the tribes. Mr. M. believed we would violate principles of -justice were we to borrow the principle of occupancy from books, and -apply it to Indian society. The Indian tribes held certain tracts of -land. As to the mode in which they thought it most rational to use the -land, it was nothing against their right to say its exercise differed -from our mode. He understood they made a hunting ground of the land in -dispute. They had a right to use it as such, and their mode of use was -no argument against their right. All that could be, or was proved to -belong to North Carolina, was the colonial right to qualified -sovereignty, called the pre-emption right. This was all she could grant, -and this was all that the claimants could take from her. They had that -now; and as he could not see the propriety of making their situation -better than if the cession had not been made, so he could not agree to -the resolution for giving them indemnity. Perhaps his ideas on the -subject might be fashioned by local circumstances, belonging as he did -to a State which had no share in those rich funds which the large -frontier States possessed, he thought, very unjustly, in immense tracts -of back lands. He felt it a duty to narrow all claims like the present -as much as possible. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Jersey, Delaware, -Maryland, were all in the same situation. They had no back lands, and -were divested of the share they were justly entitled to in the back -lands, which now bring immense funds of wealth into the land offices of -those States which possess them. - -Mr. HEISTER wished to have that part of the law read which relates to -the species of certificates referred to in the debate; this was -accordingly done. Mr. H. said that he had not enough of evidence before -him to give a vote. He therefore wished that the committee might rise. - -Mr. MACON said, that, according to Mr. BOUDINOT, it was the doctrine of -North Carolina in 1783, that the State possessed aright to the -unappropriated lands. If that was their doctrine then, nothing had since -happened which could make it cease to be so now. The Crown of Britain -had transferred the absolute property of lands, without inquiring for -permission from the Indians. This evidence went strongly to prove that -North Carolina had the same title. The case of Presqu'Isle did not -apply, for Pennsylvania was raising troops to make that settlement, and -no State can, by the constitution, raise troops of itself. He wished the -committee not to rise till they had determined the question. - -Mr. CARNES had foreseen that the claim before the committee would be -opposed upon various grounds: but he considered none of them as well -founded. Grants were first made by North Carolina to individuals, of -lands within her chartered boundary. The cession made to, and accepted -by the United States, conditioned to secure the interest of individuals. -A treaty was thereafter ordered to be held by the United States with the -Indians, and by that treaty, lands formerly granted, were relinquished -to them. The commissioners of North Carolina protested in form. The -people turned out, had paid ten pounds the hundred acres, for their -lands, and they were entitled to compensation from North Carolina, or -from the United States. It had been said that North Carolina had no -right but that of pre-emption. This Mr. C. denied. North Carolina had a -right to all the lands within her boundary; and there was an express -agreement reserving those lands to individuals. Why did the United -States contract with the State, if she had no right? The Indians never -could have been considered an independent nation, else there would be -compensation _in imperio_. He mentioned the case of the Tallissee -Country containing four million of acres. By a treaty made in 1785, -between the State of Georgia and the Creeks, this land was ceded to -Georgia. By a second treaty at New York, this very country was -relinquished to the Indians, and of course the _bona fide_ right of the -State wrested from them. If a decision could be had on this case before -a judicial tribunal, it would not require a moment's hesitation to -determine in favor of the State, and that the treaty was a nullity. It -had been alleged that the right of pre-emption was the only right in -possession of the States, that is, a title to purchase of the holders of -the property, in exclusion of all other States, or individuals thereof -or the particular State. Mr. C. contended that the fee-simple of all the -soil within the chartered limits belonged to the State. As to the -boundaries, the definitive treaty of peace settles them beyond -contradiction. As to the proprietors of these lands being in no worse -condition now than before the cession back to the Indians, the people -were ploughing the lands, when driven from them, and will any gentleman -say that this is not injuring people? As to the State of North Carolina -having no particular claim to the land now beyond the Indian line, he -would put a case within the chapter of possibilities. Suppose that all -the Indians were driven over the Mississippi to-morrow, to whom would -the lands which they now possess belong? The particular States to be -sure, within whose range they lay. The gentlemen who advocate for -morality, and who talk of treating the Indians with humanity, are the -very men who have uniformly countenanced the raising of troops, and -augmenting the force on our north-western frontiers. How can they -reconcile their conduct? The Indians to the South are to be treated with -humanity, and those to the North are to be butchered, that the United -States may enjoy their property. - -Mr. BOUDINOT said, that the charter from Britain extended to the South -Sea, but such a stretch of territory was not really claimed by Britain. -He read several of the old laws of North Carolina, to prove that the -Indian right of soil had always been acknowledged. - -Mr. BLOUNT had never thought of quoting this book, which he now did, to -show that the British Government had authorized conquest. He did not -know of one purchase made in Carolina. It was all conquest, and so were -nine-tenths of all the lands held by the white people in America. - -Mr. MCDOWELL.--Those lands which are the subject of debate, and which a -number of gentlemen have contended, that North Carolina had not a right -to grant to her citizens, have been proved to be within the chartered -limits as granted by Charles II., and which limits, sovereignty and -jurisdiction were guaranteed to the State by the Articles of -Confederation. - -After this, and within the year 1783, the Legislature passed a law for -opening an office to receive entries of lands in the district of country -now called the territory south of the Ohio, for the redemption of -special and other certificates; and after a number of the surveys were -made, and the grants issued, the Government of the United States ordered -a treaty to be held with the Cherokee Indians at Holston, in the year -1785, and the commissioners agreed to give up a large quantity of lands -before stated to the Indians; but, previous to articles being signed, -Colonel Blount, who was the agent for North Carolina, entered his -protest in behalf of the State, that some of the articles about to be -entered into between the commissioners, on the part of the United -States, and the Cherokee Indians, would infringe on the Legislative -rights of the State of North Carolina, and the Legislature of the State -also protested against the proceedings. - -I must here remark, that the then Government of the United States, -agreeably to the Articles of Confederation, could not legally make use -of the property of the State for any purpose without their consent. - -This continued to be the situation of this business, till after Congress -requested a cession of those lands, with the sovereignty thereof, which -now form the territory south of the Ohio, which was complied with under -certain reservations, to continue claims, and the situations of the -claimants as good as though this cession had not been made, which was a -complete acknowledgment of the right of North Carolina, on the part of -the United States, but in my opinion placed them in the same situation -that the State would have been in, had the cession not taken place. - -Since the adoption of the present Government, another treaty was ordered -to be held with the Indians, and the lands were given up to the Indians. -Here the Executive right to make such treaty may be questioned, and I -believe rightly too; for it would be an extraordinary power for them to -make use of the property of individuals, without their consent, or -making any compensation, and apply it to national purposes. Great -difficulties would be involved were a remedy to be attempted in a -judicial way against the Government. I do therefore think either that -policy or interest, on the part of the United States, would point out a -compliance, in part, with the report on the table, for it will not place -the United States in any worse situation than they would have been in, -had the lands not been entered. Had that been the case, those -certificates would have been in the hands of individuals, a debt against -the Government, but on their being subscribed now, to the amount -actually paid on their relinquishing their claim, you would then have -the land, which will be valuable at a period far distant. - -Some gentlemen appear to be alarmed at the sum; but if the principle is -a just or fair one, the sum ought not to be an objection. I will here -state further, to remove the alarms of those gentlemen, that the sum -will fall far short of the statement made by Mr. Jefferson, as a great -deduction is to be taken from that; but I can further assert, that a -great number of the claimants would not relinquish their claim to said -lands to subscribe; it would generally be such as are in indigent -circumstances. And here I cannot help making some reply to the -objections stated by several members, who have alleged that North -Carolina had acted wrong in selling these lands before they had -extinguished the Indian claim, and that the claimants were in no worse -situation than they would have been had the cession not have taken -place. I am not a little surprised to find, that gentlemen cannot see -the distinction, for had the cession and treaty at Holston taken place, -they were at liberty to settle the lands, and North Carolina was bound -to protect them; but since the treaty had been made, the land is not -only given up as stated, but it is made criminal to cross the boundary. -Mr. DEXTER has stated that North Carolina has acted unjustly and wrong -in making sale of those lands before she had extinguished the Indian -claims. - -Here I shall repeat what I stated before in answer to what the gentleman -has said: That the Indian claims to said lands were, in part, -extinguished by Henderson's purchase, and part by conquest, and that a -considerable part of the lands, that no nation of Indians could -establish a claim to, had been claimed by different tribes as territory -grounds, but had not been inhabited by any tribe within the memory, or -any account that can be traced, and for as great a length of time the -different tribes had been at war with each other about the right of -hunting on said land. But so far as it relates to the right of North -Carolina, I believe no member has a right to call it in question at this -time. The gentleman's arguments would have been more applicable at the -time the cession act was under consideration; and as to what the member -said about the principle and precedent it would fix, I will only call -the attention of that gentleman and the committee, to the conduct of the -Government of the United States. Have they not pushed conquests into the -Indian country north-west of the Ohio? Are they not continuing to do so, -and is it not in contemplation to sell large quantities of lands in that -country, that have never been purchased? If so, the precedent which the -gentleman fears so much is already established. But here I beg leave to -call the attention of the committee, in the most serious manner, to the -number of citizens concerned, perhaps near twenty thousand. A great -number of them are men who turned out in support of the American -Independence, who fought, who bled, and furnished their property freely -to the support of the cause. For this service they received -certificates, which they wished to realize by entering said lands, and -flattered themselves with sitting down on those lands, and in the latter -part of life making themselves and families happy. Their hopes were soon -blasted. After the act of last session, the Treaty of Holston took -place, which gave their property to a savage and cruel enemy, to quiet -the minds of an enemy who not only were opposed to us through the war -with Britain, but ever since have been imbruing their hands in the blood -of innocent women and children. What will be the feelings of the -claimants, who have acted as I have stated, when they find that their -request, which to be sure is a modest one, and which is only to be -reimbursed for sums actually paid, is refused? Should this be the -decision, I leave you to draw the conclusion. Should they proceed to -settle those lands in opposition to the treaty, I should not be much -surprised. But the report on your table goes too far, as to damage and a -future preference, which I am not in favor of; therefore the resolutions -in the latter part of the report I hope will be stricken out. - -On the same question, Mr. GILLESPIE made the subsequent remarks: he -observed a disposition in the House to call the question; he then said -that the situation in which he stood required that he should say -something in support of the resolution under consideration, as it had -been stated as a new and singular case, from which he took the liberty -to dissent, as every writer on the law and usage of nations, held it as -an invariable axiom, that all sacrifices of property made by individuals -for public uses, ought to be paid out of the public purse. He stated the -treaty between England, France, and Spain, in 1763, and the case of the -loyalists in 1783, and as the hour of adjournment had arrived, concluded -with a motion for the committee to rise and report progress. - -The question was then put, Shall the committee now rise and report -progress? This was negatived. The resolutions in the report were -successively put, and lost. - -The committee then rose; the Chairman reported progress, and the House -adjourned. - - -FRIDAY, January 30. - -The House proceeded to consider the report of the committee to whom was -referred the Message from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the -thirtieth of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four, -enclosing the copy of a letter from the Governor of North Carolina, -covering a resolution of the Legislature of that State; as, also, the -petitions of Thomas Person and others, proprietors of lands in the -territory of the United States south of the river Ohio, and of the -Trustees of the University of North Carolina, to which the Committee of -the whole House had, yesterday, reported their disagreement: Whereupon, - -The first resolution reported by the committee, being again read, in the -words following, to wit: - - "_Resolved_, That it shall be lawful for the Executive of - the State of North Carolina to subscribe, by way of loan to - the United States, the amount of all such certificates as - have been deposited in payment for any lands, (reserved by - the act of cession aforesaid,) in payment for any lands - which may have been relinquished to the Indians by the - treaty aforesaid, in trust for the persons by whom they - were so deposited, according to their respective rights and - interests:" - -The question was taken, that the House do agree with the Committee of -the whole House in their disagreement to the said first resolution, and -it was resolved in the affirmative. - -The second resolution reported by the committee, being again read, in -the words following, to wit: - - "_Resolved_, That the United States ought to reimburse the - said persons the money which they have expended in having - entries and surveys made, and in obtaining grants, and any - other incidental charges which they have necessarily - incurred, with interest; and that they should moreover make - a reasonable allowance for the loss and damage which the - petitioners have sustained, by having possession of the - said land withheld from them:" - -The question was taken, that the House do agree with the Committee of -the whole House in their disagreement to the said second resolution, and -resolved in the affirmative. - -The third resolution reported by the committee, being again read, in the -words following, to wit: - - "And whereas, the grants to the aforesaid lands, made by - virtue of an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, are - valid to all intents and purposes, as coming fully within - the purview of a condition contained in the act of session - from the said State to the United States: therefore, - - "_Resolved_, That, whenever the United States shall think - proper to extinguish the Indian claim to the said lands, by - purchase or otherwise, it will be just and reasonable that - the several persons who have obtained grants or made - surveys or entries, should have such rights confirmed and - established, and their titles perfected, in preference to - any other persons, on repaying to the Treasury of the - United States, the amount of what they may now receive, as - a compensation for their disbursements and losses, in case - such persons shall think proper to make such repayment - within a certain time, to be limited by Congress for that - purpose:" - -The question was taken that the House do agree with the Committee of the -whole House, in their disagreement to the said third resolution, and -resolved in the affirmative. - -A motion was then made, and the question being put, that the House do -agree to the following resolution: - - "_Resolved_, That such persons as have entered lands - agreeably to the laws of North Carolina, in the territory - ceded by that State to the United States, and on the Indian - side of the line established by the Treaty of Holston, - ought to be reimbursed by the United States the amount of - the purchase-money actually paid for the same, and the - necessary expense of locating and surveying, where the - survey has been made; such persons first relinquishing - their right thereto, to the United States:" - -It passed in the negative--yeas 14, nays 56, as follows: - - YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Thomas Blount, William B. Grove, - George Hancock, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph - McDowell, Alexander Mebane, John Page, Robert Rutherford, - William Smith, Benjamin Wiliams, Richard Winn, and Joseph - Winston. - - NAYS.--Fisher Ames, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, - Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, - Thomas Claiborne, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, - Jonathan Dayton, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, Gabriel - Duvall, Benjamin Edwards, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, - Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin - Goodhue, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, John Heath, James - Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten, John Hunter, - William Irvine, Aaron Kitchell; Amasa Learned, William - Lyman, James Madison, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, - Peter Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Anthony New, John - Nicholas, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, - Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston, Thomas Scott, John S. - Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Zephaniah Swift, - George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. - Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Artemas Ward, and Paine - Wingate. - -Another motion was then made and seconded, that the House do come to the -following resolution: - - "RESOLVED, That the President of the United States be - requested to cause a treaty to be entered into with any - Indian tribes who may claim, hold, possess, or be entitled, - to any lands within the territory ceded by the State of - North Carolina to the United States; and to endeavor to - obtain, by such treaty, an extinguishment of the Indian - claims to all lands, the pre-emptive right to which has - been sold by the said State, in pursuance of the act of one - thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, opening an office - for the sale of the said lands." - -_Ordered_, That the said motion be committed to Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. -DAYTON, Mr. SWIFT, Mr. MCDOWELL, and Mr. PAGE. - - -MONDAY, February 9. - -ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, returned to serve in this House as a member for -the State of South Carolina, in the room of ALEXANDER GILLON, deceased, -appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in -the House. - - -FRIDAY, February 13. - -_Heirs of Count de Grasse._ - -A memorial of Amelie, Adelaide, Melanie, and Silvie de Grasse, four -daughters of the late Count de Grasse, now residing at Salem in the -State of Massachusetts, was presented to the House and read, praying a -loan of money for their present subsistence; the effects which they -brought from France being exhausted, and having no other means of -support, but in property in the Island of St. Domingo, from which, under -present circumstances, no supplies can be drawn. - -_Ordered_, That the said memorial be referred to Mr. AMES, Mr. MADISON, -and Mr. GILMAN, with instruction to examine the matter thereof, and -report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 18. - -_Count de Grasses Heirs._ - -The House then went into a committee on a memorial from the four -daughters of the late Admiral Count de Grasse. It was read with the -report from a select committee, which proposed to give each of these -ladies, who are now residing in Boston, and in indigent circumstances, a -thousand dollars, in consideration of the important services rendered by -their father to the United States. To this proposal the committee -agreed, and the Chairman reported the resolution. - -The House then took up the report. - -Mr. MACON objected that though the claims of the petitioners were -strong, yet they were not more so than those of multitudes of others. On -the very day when we have come to a resolution to receive no more -petitions from our fellow-citizens, we are going to give so large a sum -at once to foreigners. He was aware that the Count de Grasse had done -eminent services to America, and he felt them as much as any person, but -he still saw no reason for preferring these petitioners, when there were -likely a hundred of the officers of De Grasse, or of Rochambeau's army, -that were in this country, and in want. - -Mr. DEXTER said, that if ever there was a case where it would be proper -to act first, and thereafter try to find reasons for what had been done, -this was such a case. - -The report was, on a division, agreed to by a great majority--sixty-one -gentlemen rising in the affirmative. The resolution is in the following -words: - -_Resolved_, That, in consideration of the extraordinary services -rendered the United States by the late Count de Grasse in the year one -thousand seven hundred and eighty-one, on the urgent request of the -Commander-in-chief of the American forces, beyond the term limited for -his co-operation with the troops of the United States, there be allowed -and paid to Amelie, Adelaide, Melanie, and Silvie de Grasse, daughters -of the late Count de Grasse, respectively the sum of one thousand -dollars each. - -_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said -resolution, and that Mr. AMES, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. GILMAN, do prepare -and bring in the same. - - -SATURDAY, February 21. - -An engrossed bill authorizing the payment of four thousand dollars for -the use of the daughters of the late Count de Grasse, was read the third -time and passed. - - -TUESDAY, February 24. - -_Case of Thomas Person and others._ - -It was moved that the House should go into consideration of the report -of the select committee to whom had been referred a resolution of the -House in relation to the back lands of North Carolina. The following is -the resolution of the select committee: - - "_Resolved_, That in case the President of the United - States shall think proper to enter into a treaty or - treaties with all or any of the Indian tribes claiming - lands within the territory south of the river Ohio, for the - extinguishment of their claims to all or any of the said - lands, the sum of ---- dollars be, and the same is hereby, - appropriated to the purpose of defraying the expenses of - any such treaty or treaties." - -Mr. GOODHUE did not see that the United States had any concern to -interfere in such a purchase: it was private property. - -Mr. DAYTON explained that the petition of Thomas Person and others -comprehended only two millions of acres. The resolution contemplated -twenty millions. It will, when completed, enable the United States to -protect the Choctaws and Chickasaws from the Creeks and Cherokees, if -the latter should happen to attack them; and that they will attack the -Chickasaws is not improbable, from assistance which the latter have -given to the white people. Besides, the frontier will be capable of -defence, at a much cheaper rate, in this way than at present it can be. -It is now an irregular line. A peculiar circumstance, besides, will make -the lands easy to be purchased. No Indian tribes reside on them. When -the gentleman from Massachusetts considers these things, he will not -object, since the United States will gain eighteen millions of acres by -the transaction. - -Mr. GOODHUE admitted the reasoning as to the eighteen millions, but -still scrupled as to the rest. - -Mr. SWIFT recommended that the Indian claim should in the mean time be -extinguished. - -Mr. MCDOWELL, in reply to Mr. GOODHUE, said that if the gentleman had -attended to the reasonings formerly used on this subject, and which had -occupied considerable time of the House during the present session, he -could have been at no loss for understanding the propriety of this -purchase being made by the United States. - -A committee were named to bring in a bill, in terms of the resolution -recommended by the select committee. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 25. - -_Indian Lands in Georgia._ - -The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on -the report of the committee to whom was referred so much of the message -from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the seventeenth instant, as -relates to the disposition of Indian lands by the Legislature of the -State of Georgia. - -Mr. AMES said, that during the time when the National Debt bill was -under discussion, he had attempted to get something introduced in favor -of the new emission money creditors, but gentlemen always rose _en -masse_ against any proposal that would tend to obstruct the progress of -the bill. He now again urged that this affair might be taken into -consideration. He knew he should be told of a standing rule of the House -that the unfinished business must first be taken up. These creditors had -waited for four years without redress, and the rules of the House ought -to give way to common feeling and common sense. He therefore moved that -the rule in question should be suspended. - -The motion was negatived, and the House then went into a committee upon -the second and remaining resolutions in the report of the select -committee on the Message of the PRESIDENT. - -The following is a copy of the third and fourth resolutions in this -report: - - "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be - authorized, whenever claims under prior contracts may cease - to exist, to obtain a cession of the State of Georgia, of - their claim to the whole or any part of the land within the - present Indian boundaries; and that ---- dollars ought to - be appropriated to enable him to effect the same. - - "_Resolved_, That all persons who shall be assembled, or - embodied in arms, on any lands belonging to Indians, out of - the ordinary jurisdiction of any State, or of the territory - south of the river Ohio, for the purpose of warring against - the Indians, or committing depredations upon any Indian - town, or persons, or property, shall thereby become liable - and subject to the rules and articles of war, which are, or - shall be established for the government of the troops of - the United States." - -After some discussion, the committee rose; the Chairman reported -progress, and asked leave to sit again. This was negatived--yeas 33, -nays 35. - -The House then took up the resolutions. Various amendments were -proposed; and the last resolution, in particular, was objected to, as -subjecting people to martial law. - -Mr. WADSWORTH said, that from a trial by jury he had no hopes. There -never had been one instance of a white man condemned and hanged by white -men, on the frontier, for the murder of an Indian, since the first -landing in America. There might be such a thing for the murder of an -Indian, when they lived among the whites. That there ever had been such -a thing he did not know. He had been told by judges, upon the frontier, -that it was no matter what evidence of a murder of an Indian was -brought. No jury would bring the criminal in guilty. It was but very -lately that a cool and unprovoked murder had been committed on the -borders of this State upon an Indian. The evidence was clear. Nobody -pretended to doubt it. The judge gave an earnest charge to the jury; but -all to no purpose; they found "not guilty." - -Mr. SEDGWICK proposed an amendment to the last resolution, as follows: - - "_Resolved_, That all persons who shall be assembled, or - embodied in arms, on any lands belonging to Indians, out of - the ordinary jurisdiction of any State, or of the territory - south of the river Ohio, for the purpose of warring against - the Indians, or of committing depredations against any - Indian town, or persons, or property, shall thereby become - liable and subject to be taken and confined by the military - force of the United States, in such manner as to be made - amenable to, and triable by law." - -_Ordered_, That the said motion be committed to Mr. SEDGWICK, Mr. -MADISON, and Mr. HILLHOUSE. - - -FRIDAY, February 27. - -_Indian Lands in Georgia._ - -The House then went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. SHERBURNE in the -chair, on the report of the select committee to whom had been referred -the motion of the 25th instant, respecting such persons as shall be -assembled, or embodied in arms, on any lands belonging to Indians, out -of the ordinary jurisdiction of any State, or of the territory of the -United States south of the river Ohio. The resolutions are as follow: - - "_Resolved_, That all persons who, unauthorized by law, may - be found in arms on any lands westward of the lines - established by treaties with the Indian tribes, shall, on - conviction thereof, forfeit a sum not exceeding ---- - dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding ---- months. - - "_Resolved_, That it shall be lawful for the military force - of the United States to apprehend every person or persons - found in arms, as aforesaid, and him or them to convey to - the civil authority of the United States, within some of - the States, who shall, by such authority, be secured, to be - tried in manner hereafter expressed. - - "_Resolved_, That every person apprehended, as aforesaid, - shall be tried in manner and form as is expressed in and by - the act, entitled, 'An act to regulate trade and - intercourse with the Indian tribes.'" - -Several amendments were proposed and agreed to. At last Mr. VENABLE -proposed one, which was, in substance, that persons should not be liable -to the operation of the law who were in pursuit of Indians that had -committed actual hostilities on the frontier. - -Mr. SEDGWICK paid many compliments to Mr. VENABLE, as a sound lawyer, -who certainly knew that, by the inherent rights of nature, every man was -to pursue and punish those who had robbed him. This was implied in the -bill, and was a part of the law of nature, so that there could be no use -for its insertion. - -Mr. VENABLE, in reply, declared that he was not so sound a lawyer as the -gentleman supposed him to be. He was not so sound a lawyer as to -discover that there was any such implication in the bill as the -gentleman stated. Neither was he a sound enough lawyer to see, that, if -his amendment was really implied in the bill, there could be any harm in -having it expressed. At present he could discover no such implication. -On the contrary, he saw very plainly, that, by the resolution as it now -stood, a man whose family had been murdered or carried off by the -savages, might, while pursuing them, be stopped and sent to jail. Mr. -V., from the admission of Mr. SEDGWICK himself, insisted on the -propriety of adopting his amendment. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE objected to the permission of armed individuals crossing -the line, upon any pretence whatever. What use was there for expending -millions every year in defence of the frontier people, if they were to -be at liberty to cross the Indian line as often as they pleased, and to -do what was to all intents and purposes carrying on war? If they will -fight, let us recall our forces and leave them to fight for themselves. -Are they, for the stealing of a horse, or some such thing, to cross the -line in armed bodies, and act just as they please? Mr. H. utterly denied -the doctrine admitted by Mr. SEDGWICK, that a man was authorized to -chastise by his own hand those who had injured him. Was he to be both -judge and executioner in his own case? No such thing. - -Mr. GREENUP said, that, in coming to Congress every year, he was obliged -to pass over territories belonging to Indians, and he always thought it -necessary to carry a gun. He did not see, by the resolution as it stood, -why the military officers of the United States might not stop him, as -well as other people. - -Mr. MOORE objected to the clause altogether. It is usual for people on -the frontiers to send out parties over the line to watch the Indians, -and when they are coming to give notice, that the country may be -prepared for their reception. Now, these people may be seized by your -officers. - -Mr. FINDLAY imagined it would be the best way to declare that there -shall be no frontier. It had been said by Mr. HILLHOUSE that the United -States might withdraw their forces, and leave the frontier settlers to -defend themselves. Did he imagine that, as it is, they are not kept in a -perpetual state of alarm, of exertion, and of danger? There has not been -a harvest for many years past where the people have not been called off -from their labors, and, to their very great loss, to protect the -frontier. This resolution not to allow pursuit, would be inviting the -Indians with a witness. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this amendment, in reality, destroyed all that -had been done or intended. No military officer, after such an amendment, -will run the risk of taking a man up. The prisoner has only to say, "I -am in pursuit of Indians," and then he must be set at liberty; for, in -the wilderness, no evidence can be had to contradict him. The amendment, -therefore, was a _coup de grace_ to the whole affair. Mr. S. said he was -personally extremely hurt at the constant complaints of the inefficiency -of the defence afforded on the frontier, which cost annually so much to -Government. - -Mr. BLOUNT thought that the best way would be, to let it be known that -the whites were authorized to pursue the Indians into their own country, -and then they would stand more in awe. He mentioned a circumstance that -happened within memory, to prove how much the Indians feared a serious -attack, and how well they remembered a serious chastisement. Mr. B. -stated that some Indians had made an incursion, and were stealing cattle -belonging to the army, at a block-house. One of them was most deservedly -shot, and the soldier had his pay stopped. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE said, the more that he thought of this amendment, the more -he saw its mischievous consequences. It went to invert all the laws that -had been made for the protection of the Indians; and, instead of being a -bill to protect them from the whites, the resolutions would produce a -bill to protect the whites from them. - -Mr. SMILIE objected to Mr. SEDGWICK's having threatened that the army of -the United States should be withdrawn from the frontiers. [He had made -some other advances against that gentleman, to which Mr. SEDGWICK -answered not loud enough to be heard; but at this last, he arose, and -said that he would not sit still to hear himself thus quoted for -affirmations of which he had never uttered a single word.] - -Mr. FITZSIMONS really hoped that the House would not agree to this -amendment. It would totally defeat all the effects proposed by the bill. -It had been said, that if a man had his family murdered, and he was in -pursuit of the murderers, he might be stopped by a military officer, and -sent to jail. The answer was, that if the officer refused to join him in -the pursuit, he would lose his commission. He should be sorry if those -resolutions, which had cost so much time and labor to the House, were -thus to be thrown away. - -The amendment was, on a division, carried--yeas 36, nays 28. The -committee then rose. - - -SATURDAY, February 28. - -_Indian Trading Houses._ - -It was moved that the House should resolve itself into a committee on -the bill for establishing trading houses for the purpose of supplying -the Indian nations within the territory of the United States. This was -done accordingly, Mr. SHERBURNE in the chair. - -Mr. GILES then moved to strike out the first section. - -Mr. GOODHUE wished to move that the committee rise; to which Mr. GILES -agreed. Mr. GOODHUE then said, that his reason for this motion was, the -inattention of members to the business before them. To attempt going -through the bill at present was a perfect farce. He was satisfied that -the bill would never go through this session. He did not, for his own -part, yet know whether it was proper or not. - -Mr. PARKER said, that the bill had been long enough before the House for -the gentleman from Massachusetts to have made himself acquainted with -its contents and its merits. He vindicated the principle of the bill, as -tending to conciliate the affections of a distressed and unhappy people, -and as it might likewise prevent the expenses of a war with them. -France, Britain, and Spain, had adopted this policy, and found the good -effects of it. He considered the bill as of the utmost consequence, and, -thinking so, he should use his utmost influence to get it passed. The -expense proposed was not great, as the affair was only experimental. - -Mr. MONTGOMERY was of the same opinion with the gentleman who spoke -last. He thought that the Indians had common sense enough not to quit -allies who supplied them with articles which they wanted, till we also -made some effectual establishment of that kind. The member went on the -same ground with the gentleman who spoke last. - -Mr. BOUDINOT thought that the reason given by Mr. GOODHUE for moving -that the committee should rise, viz: that gentlemen would not attend to -their duty, was the worst imaginable. What did the House meet for at -all? It was the duty of the Chair to compel them to mind their business. -Mr. B. then referred to something which had been said by Mr. SWIFT, who -had been up just before Mr. BOUDINOT. Mr. B. in reply to this gentleman, -said, that he would not wish to press the bill this session if members -did not think it proper. He was willing, if agreeable, to refer the -matter for one year to the PRESIDENT. But there never would nor could be -a complete peace till something of this kind was done. The PRESIDENT -himself had told us as much. - -Mr. GILES said, that the bill could not be got through this session. He -was willing to take the question either in the first way that he had -moved it, or in any other. This was a most improper time of the session -to bring it in. - -Mr. MURRAY hoped that the committee would seriously attend to the first -clause in the bill, and would not rise. He felt the shortness of the -time, but he was willing to devote to-morrow (Sunday) to this subject, -and he trusted that the importance of it would give the employment a -solemnity not inconsistent with the day. Without a bill to establish a -well-guarded intercourse with the Indians, the frontier policy will be -unsystematic and despicable. To complete the system, it appeared to him -that three great objects are to be embraced: 1st. Force to protect the -frontier from Indian invasion--for this the Military Establishment is -made. 2d. A regulation, by law, that shall restrain the frontier people -from predatory invasion into the Indian country, carrying law and -settlement hand in hand. 3d. The establishment of trading houses under -the influence of the two first parts of the system, for the purpose of -conciliating the Indians by supplying their wants, and detaching their -habits of trade and their affections from a foreign nation. With these -three points embraced in one system, he had no doubt but their -co-operation would produce the great object, peace on the frontier. -Without the last, the other parts of the system would be totally -inefficient. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE said, that the House ought to begin at the right end of -the subject, by reversing the vote which the committee passed -yesterday, authorizing the frontier people to pass the line in pursuit -of the Indians as often as they pleased. If this was allowed, it would -be impossible ever to keep peace. - -On a division, shall the committee now rise? it was determined in the -affirmative--yeas 35, nays 31. - -The question was then put by the SPEAKER, Shall the committee have leave -to sit again? It passed in the affirmative--yeas 34, nays 33. - -But it was presently remarked, that some gentlemen had risen both in the -yeas and nays; others had been without the bar. The question was, -therefore, taken over again, and determined in the negative--yeas 36, -nays 41. The bill is, therefore, thrown out. - -_Indian Lands in Georgia._ - -The House proceeded to consider the resolution and amendments thereto, -reported yesterday from the Committee of the whole House on the report -of the committee to whom was referred a motion of the 25th instant, -respecting such persons as shall be assembled or embodied in arms on any -lands belonging to Indians out of the ordinary jurisdiction of any -State, or of the territory of the United States south of the river Ohio: -Whereupon, - -The first resolution being read, in the words following, to wit: - - "_Resolved_, That all persons who, unauthorized by law, and - with hostile intent, may be found in arms on any lands - allotted or secured to the Indians by treaties between the - United States and any Indian tribes, shall, on conviction - thereof, forfeit a sum not exceeding ---- dollars, and be - imprisoned not exceeding ---- months." - -And the amendment thereto, reported by the Committee of the whole House, -to add to the end thereof the words, "unless it shall be in immediate -pursuit of Indians, who shall have recently committed hostilities." - -When the question was about to be taken on it, Mr. VENABLE rose and -pointed out the difference of opinion between two gentlemen who were -both opposed to his amendment. One of them (Mr. SEDGWICK) had maintained -that, when individual Indians, unauthorized by the rest of their tribe, -crossed the line and committed depredations, a settler was, by the law -of nations, authorized to pursue them across the line and to retaliate, -and that this was implied in the bill. Mr. HILLHOUSE had materially -differed from him, and agreed with Mr. VENABLE, in supposing that the -person so pursuing across the line was punishable by the resolution as -it stood, without the amendment. He then reminded the House that this -frontier line was, perhaps, fifteen hundred miles long. The Indians may -come over any part of it, while the citizens of the United States are -not to be allowed to cross it one mile in pursuit. Even a man in pursuit -of savages who may have carried off his wife and children, may be -stopped. The amendment he regarded as essential. Military officers may -judge on the spot whether such persons whom they meet beyond the line, -in pursuit of Indians, are within the sense of the act or not. - -Mr. AMES denied that the resolution as it first stood took away the -right of a man to pursue the Indians, in order to recover his wife and -children. But the amendment of Mr. VENABLE went to legalize all those -acts of violence and revenge, that, for a century past, have deluged the -frontier with blood. - -Mr. LYMAN vindicated the inhabitants of the frontier. If the Indians are -so unfortunate as to be the dupes of other nations, (viz: the Spaniards -and British,) that is not our fault. The frontier people, from time to -time, have done every thing in their power to keep them in peace. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE opposed the amendment. - -Mr. MCDOWELL said, that weekly and daily murders were committed by the -Creeks in the district of Mero and in the South-western Territory. Do -the United States avenge these murders? No. Do they demand back the -property carried off? No. Instead of any satisfaction to the people, -their characters are abused on this floor. The frontier people know that -their happiness consists in peace, and, therefore, cultivate it as much -as they can. He took a general view of the subject, and explained the -insignificance of the posts as at present held by the troops of the -United States for any purpose of protection. He noticed the inveterate -hatred of the Indians against the whites, and their innate thirst of -blood. - -Mr. MOORE went on the same grounds. - -Mr. GILES did not like the harsh style assumed by some gentlemen in -speaking of the frontier settlers. A hundred years hence these people -would preponderate over this part of the Continent. He represented an -Atlantic part of the Union, but, at the same time, he would carefully -avoid any thing that might offend the Western people. The first settlers -in this country were, when they first landed, frontier settlers. For his -own part, he believed that the war between the whites and the Indians -would be eternal. He said, that, from some intelligence received this -day, there was reason to believe that a war with the Creeks might soon -be expected. - -Mr. WADSWORTH.--Gentlemen have a great disposition to husband our little -time, and I need not mention their manner of doing it. He said that he -was willing to grant protection to the frontiers, but not to give leave, -as by the amendment proposed, for an eternal war. He thought it -calculated to drive the gentlemen on each side of this question into -such opposite extremes, that they would never meet again upon the -subject. He was willing to grant any degree of protection, but nothing -for conquest. He said that the ancestors of the people now in the -Atlantic part of the country were once frontier people, and he believed -them to have been neither worse nor better than the present settlers, -who are in the same situation. We are told of murders and robberies -committed by the Indians; but the accounts of some of the officers -employed by Government vary a little from this, and give room to suspect -that there may be some error on both sides. He did not believe that this -amendment would pass; but, if it should do so, it would widen the -difference of opinion in the House. - -Mr. PAGE was for the amendment. - -Mr. CARNES could not conceive the reason why all regulations made in -this House were for Indians only, as if the whites were constantly the -aggressors. He asked if the Creeks performed a single tittle of the -treaty of New York, about which there had been so much parade? No. The -only design of Indians in making a peace is to get presents, for these -they always get. As soon as these are spent they commit a new set of -murders, in the hopes of another treaty. Thus they always have gone on, -and always will go on, from murders to treaties, and from treaties to -murders. Mr. C. complained that a gentleman from Maryland (Mr. MURRAY) -had some days ago called the frontier people semi-savages. He hoped that -such an expression would never again be used in that House. As to the -treaty of New York, he might be told that the Creeks restored a number -of women and children. He knew that; but he also knew that, before they -did so, the relations of those people were obliged to put their hands in -their pockets and pay large sums for their redemption, as the prisoners -would not have been delivered up in consequence of the treaty of New -York. This bill, without the amendment of Mr. VENABLE, would be an -encouragement to the savages to come over the line and murder with -impunity. - -Mr. SCOTT was entirely in favor of the amendment. If the resolution -passes without the amendment houses will soon be smoking and blood -running. He believed that the subject in question was beyond the reach -of human wisdom to regulate. He thought that striking out the amendment -would only encourage the Indians to come in a body across the line. This -they were never afraid of doing. The only thing which they feared was a -pursuit, and this was to be effectually prevented by striking out the -amendment. Was there ever such a thing heard of before as that, when the -savages have carried off a man's wife and children, he must not be at -liberty to pursue them? It would be the most frightful thing imaginable -for the House to pass a law declaring such a pursuit criminal. Mr. S. -could figure a case where the farm of a settler might come close to the -Indian line, and the Indian might stand on the other side of the line -and shoot him, and his neighbors would not be at liberty to pursue the -murderer. Mr. S. said, that in that part of the country where he resided -(Washington county) nothing of this kind was to be feared, as the line -was at a sufficient distance from the cultivated lands, but there were -other places on the frontier of the United States where this might -happen. He said that no Christian nation had a right to ask better terms -than this amendment offered to the savages. Stay upon your own side of -the line and you are safe, but, if you cross over to us, we shall cross -over in pursuit of you. This was fair play. If the resolution passed -without the amendment, Mr. S. said that the Indians would immediately -encamp close on their side of the line, and lie in watch there for whole -months together, till they found a safe opportunity of crossing. - -Mr. MURRAY said, he would make a remark or two on the criticism of the -gentleman from Georgia, who had felt affected by an expression of his a -few days since, when he called some of the people of the frontier -"semi-savages." He did so, and he felt the expression not inapplicable. -He confined the import of this expression exclusively to those upon the -frontier who lead an unstationary life--who press forward into the -deeper wilderness, by the new waves of advancing population, and live -the life of savages without their virtues. He begged leave to call the -gentleman's attention to a declaration of his own, last session, to -justify this expression, which he used more to designate a peculiar than -a general character of the people in the region to which he applied it. -The gentleman said, he did not value the lives of one hundred Indians as -much as the life of one white man, or words to that extent. [This was in -a debate just before the close of the last session. The words of Mr. -CARNES were, "I would not give the life of one white man for that of -fifty Indians."] Mr. MURRAY said, he had two points always in his view -when the frontier was a subject in that House--protection to the -frontier against the hostility of the Indians, and restraint upon the -whites to prevent the occasions of war against the savages. He had given -every testimony to the first by supporting every measure for their -defence; that he represented a district perfectly beyond the danger of -the Indians, was proof that he was actuated in his votes for -appropriation and force by no other motive than that which belonged to -every man there who supported the great principle of Government, that -the whole must protect the parts. He wished to see such a system -established, combining these two points, as would give complete -protection against the Indians, and yet restrain the whites from -violating peace. He wished to see the day when the arms of the -Government might, without a crime, strike a whole tribe, if that tribe -or its members waged war on the frontiers. But, to do this, it was -necessary to place our relative situation so as that justice might be -secured. He wished to adopt a regulation like the present, to prevent -our fellow-citizens from the gratification of private revenge, the -source from whence so much blood is shed. In order to justify exemplary -punishment on Indian tribes, you must first be in a situation to -restrain the whites from doing injustice to them. You must do what all -nations have done, when, from the general or local state of -civilization, private war disturbs public tranquillity--you must -restrain the right of private war, by placing the power of vengeance out -of the reach of individuals, and in the hands of Government. Nor did -this idea go at all to restrain that inalienable right of resistance -against imminent danger, which was sanctioned by the law of nature. The -picture drawn by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SCOTT,) with his -accustomed ability and force, was certainly an interesting one--were an -encampment of Indians to be heard in the woods near a settlement, after -any evidence of hostility, he did not doubt but the neighbors would be -perfectly justifiable in changing the scene of blood from the cottage to -the camp--if the amendment which actually arms all the passions of -revenge with the rights of law, be rejected, you will attain one of the -great objects of frontier policy--the ability to restrain the right of -private war, from which public war arises as a consequence. The -Government will, when this ability to restrain is complete, become -responsible for the protection of the whites against the savages. Until -that is accomplished, he did not believe Government could, either in -justice or policy, expend treasure or use force, when uncertain of the -justice of the cause. He therefore hoped that the amendment would be -rejected. - -Mr. FINDLAY was for the amendment, and mentioned several examples to -prove the cruelty and perfidy of the Indians. - -The amendment itself was in these words: "Unless it shall be in -immediate pursuit of the Indians who have recently committed -hostilities." - -Mr. MADISON did not think the question explicit; he therefore proposed -another, which was to prevent the pursuers from coming within a certain -number of miles of an Indian town. He was extremely doubtful whether his -amendment or any other would effectually answer the end proposed. He was -convinced that no law of any kind would be able to hinder people from -crossing the line in pursuit of Indians, who might have carried off -their families. - -Mr. HARPER said, that however little time the House had to spare, and -however long the discussion might have been, he could not help -trespassing on their patience for a short time to deliver his -sentiments, as he thought himself tolerably acquainted with the subject. -He expressly denied that the Indians ever committed any murder without -previous provocation. The process is shortly this: An Indian crosses the -line and steals a horse. And as long as Indians exist they will always -steal horses. The man to whom the horse belonged collects as many of his -neighbors as he thinks sufficient, pursues the Indian, and, not -contented with recovering his horse, he kills the thief. The Indians, -who have no such sacred ideas of property, immediately come over the -line, and in revenge murder a number of innocent people. Indian murders -are not unprovoked. They are not of that stamp. Mr. H. considered the -amendment of Mr. VENABLE as a source of endless confusion. Any man, if -it passed, might cross the Indian line as often as he thought proper, -and say that he was in pursuit of Indians with prisoners. I undertake, -(said he,) if you will give me a hundred dollars, to go to the frontier -and get a witness who will come into a Court of Justice and swear that -on such a day ten Indians came over the line in arms. Mr. H. said he was -personally acquainted with the frontiers. He had a high respect for the -inhabitants, there were many very worthy people among them; but likewise -many others of a very different kind. This amendment will set open a -door to all sorts of fraud and mischief. Mr. H. honored the sentiments -of patriotism that gave rise to it, but he could not possibly agree to -the propriety of its insertion. - -Mr. WHITE, the member from the South-western Territory, said, that he -had to complain of the slaughter of near four hundred citizens under the -auspices of your Government. He felt himself much affected, and as to -the doctrine of Indian killing, only in retaliation, he denied it -altogether. The love of blood was hereditary in them. When the gentleman -says that with a hundred dollars in his pocket, he can find ten men on -the frontiers--[Mr. HARPER explained, that he only said he could find a -witness.] Well, (said Mr. W.) if the gentleman did not mean a reflection -on the frontiers, he meant nothing at all. I know not how well the -gentleman may be practised in the arts of subornation, but I myself know -of no such man. [Mr. HARPER.--I expected the gentleman would confine -himself to a decent answer.] Mr. W. proceeded to observe that no man -acquainted with the frontiers would have made any such assertion as the -gentleman had done. He was likewise extremely surprised at the gentleman -from Maryland, for having persisted in affirming that many of the -frontier people were semi-savages. - -The yeas and nays were now taken on the amendment, which was lost by a -majority of 7--yeas 39, nays 46, as follows: - - YEAS.--James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, - Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas - Claiborne, William J. Dawson, George Dent, Samuel Dexter, - Gabriel Duvall, Benjamin Edwards, William Findlay, - Christopher Greenup, William B. Grove, George Hancock, - Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, William Irvine, Matthew - Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph Mcdowell, - Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Peter - Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, Alexander D. Orr, - John Page, Thomas Scott, John Smilie, Thomas Sprigg, Thos. - Tredwell, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis - Walker, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston. - - NAYS.--Fisher Ames, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, - Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, - David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Henry Dearborn, - Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas - Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Robert - Goodloe Harper, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel - Holten, John Hunter, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera, - Amasa Learned, James Madison, Francis Malbone, William Vans - Murray, Nathaniel Niles, Andrew Pickens, Theodore Sedgwick, - John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, Wm. Smith, - Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan - Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg - Wadsworth, Jeremiah Wadsworth, John Watts, Benjamin - Williams, and Paine Wingate. - -Mr. GILES, who had been in the House during the whole debate, had gone -out just before the question was put, and returning immediately after -the names had been called, asked leave to vote. The rule of the House -was read by the SPEAKER, which is that no member shall vote who was not -present at putting of the question. Mr. G., on this account, was not -allowed a vote. - -Mr. CARNES then moved to amend the said resolution by adding to the end -thereof the following words: - - "Unless it shall be in continuation of a pursuit to a - distance not exceeding ---- miles beyond the line of the - particular Indians who shall have recently committed - murder, or may be carrying off captives or plunder." - -It was resolved in the affirmative. - -The said resolution, as amended, was then again read, and agreed to by -the House, as follows: - -_Resolved_, That all persons who, unauthorized by law, and with hostile -intent, may be found in arms on any lands allotted or secured to the -Indians by treaties between the United States and any Indian tribes, -shall, on conviction thereof, forfeit a sum not exceeding ---- dollars, -and be imprisoned not exceeding ---- months, unless it shall be in -continuation of a pursuit to a distance not exceeding ---- miles beyond -the line of the particular Indians who shall have recently committed -murder, or may be carrying off captives or plunder. - -The second resolution being again read, and amended, was, on the -question put thereupon, agreed to by the House, as follows: - -_Resolved_, That it shall be lawful for the military force of the United -States to apprehend every person or persons found in arms as aforesaid, -and him or them to convey to the civil authority of the United States, -within some one of the States, who shall, by such authority, be secured -to be tried in manner and form as is provided in and by the act -entitled, "An act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian -tribes:" _Provided_, that no person shall be confined after his arrest, -and before his removal, more than ---- days. - -_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said -resolutions, and that Mr. SEDGWICK, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. HILLHOUSE, do -prepare, and bring in the same. - - -TUESDAY, March 3. - -_Adjournment._ - -_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 without day; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the -said message. - -A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have -appointed a committee, on their part, jointly, with such committee as -may be appointed on the part of this House, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF -THE UNITED STATES, and inform him that Congress is ready to adjourn -without day, unless he may have any further communications to make to -them. - -The House proceeded to consider the said message: Whereupon, - -_Resolved_, That this House doth agree to the resolution of the Senate -for the appointment of a joint committee of the two Houses, to wait on -the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him of the intended -recess of Congress; and that Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. -TRUMBULL, be of the committee appointed on the part of this House. - -On a motion made and seconded, - - "That the thanks of this House be presented to Frederick - Augustus Muhlenberg, in testimony of their approbation of - his conduct in discharging the arduous and important duties - assigned him while in the chair:" - -It was resolved unanimously: Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER made his -acknowledgments to the House in manner following: - - "GENTLEMEN: I feel myself highly honored by this - distinguished mark of your approbation of my conduct in the - station you were pleased to assign unto me; and although I - am conscious that my feeble efforts do not merit so - precious a reward, yet permit me to assure you that it has - made a lasting impression on my mind, and I shall ever - esteem it with the most unfeigned satisfaction. - - "Gentlemen, I sincerely thank you; may every happiness - attend you; may you long continue to enjoy the confidence - of your fellow-citizens; and may you meet with their just - applause of having deserved well of your country." - -Mr. BOUDINOT, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and inform him of the intended recess of -Congress, reported that the committee had performed that service, and -that the PRESIDENT signified to them that he had no further -communication to make during the present session: Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER -adjourned the House _sine die_. - - - - -FOURTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION. - -HELD IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 7, 1795. - -LIST OF MEMBERS. - - -SENATORS. - -_New Hampshire._--John Langdon, S. Livermore. - -_Vermont._--Elijah Paine, Moses Robinson. - -_Massachusetts._--George Cabot, Caleb Strong. - -_Rhode Island._--William Bradford, Theodore Foster. - -_Connecticut._--Oliver Ellsworth, Jonathan Trumbull. - -_New York._--Aaron Burr, Rufus King. - -_New Jersey._--F. Frelinghuysen, John Rutherford. - -_Pennsylvania._--William Bingham, James Ross. - -_Delaware._--Henry Latimer, John Vining. - -_Maryland._--John Henry, Richard Potts. - -_Virginia._--Stevens T. Mason, Henry Tazewell. - -_North Carolina._--Timothy Bloodworth, Alexander Martin. - -_South Carolina._--Pierce Butler, Jacob Read. - -_Georgia._--James Gunn, George Walton. - -_Kentucky._--John Brown, Humphrey Marshall. - -REPRESENTATIVES. - -_New Hampshire._--Abiel Foster, Nicholas Gilman, J. S. Sherburne, -Jeremiah Smith, Paine Wingate. - -_Vermont._--Daniel Buck, Israel Smith. - -_Massachusetts._--Fisher Ames, Theop. Bradbury, Henry Dearborn, Dwight -Foster, Nathaniel Freeman, Benjamin Goodhue, George Leonard, Samuel -Lyman, William Lyman, John Read, T. Sedgwick, George Thatcher, Joseph B. -Varnum, P. Wadsworth. - -_Rhode Island._--Benjamin Bourne, Francis Malbone. - -_Connecticut._--Joshua Coit, C. Goodrich, Roger Griswold, James -Hillhouse, Nathaniel Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Uriah Tracy. - -_New York._--Theodorus Bailey, William Cooper, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry -Glenn, John Hathorn, J. N. Havens, E. Livingston, John E. Van Allen, -Philip Van Cortlandt, John Williams. - -_New Jersey._--Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Henderson, Aaron Kitchell, Isaac -Smith, Mark Thompson. - -_Pennsylvania._--David Bard, George Ege, William Findlay, Albert -Gallatin, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, John W. Kittera, -Samuel Maclay, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, John Richards, Samuel -Sitgreaves, John Swanwick, Richard Thomas. - -_Delaware._--John Paton. - -_Maryland._--Gabriel Christie, Jeremiah Crabb, George Dent, Gabriel -Duvall, William Hindman, Samuel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, William Vans -Murray. - -_Virginia._--Richard Brent, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, John -Clopton, Isaac Coles, William B. Giles, George Hancock, Carter B. -Harrison, John Heath, John George Jackson, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, -John Nicholas, John Page, Josiah Parker, Francis Preston, Robert -Rutherford, A. B. Venable. - -_North Carolina._--Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Jesse -Franklin, James Gillespie, William B. Grove, James Holland, Matthew -Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Absalom Tatom. - -_South Carolina._--Lemuel Benton, Samuel Earle, Wade Hampton, R. G. -Harper, William Smith, Richard Winn. - -_Georgia._--A. Baldwin, John Milledge. - -_Tennessee._--Andrew Jackson. - -_Kentucky._--Christopher Greenup. - - -PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE. - - -MONDAY, December 7, 1795. - -The following Senators appeared, and took their seats: - -JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire. - -CALEB STRONG and GEORGE CABOT, from Massachusetts. - -THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island. - -OLIVER ELLSWORTH and JONATHAN TRUMBULL, from Connecticut. - -MOSES ROBINSON, from Vermont. - -RUFUS KING, from New York. - -JAMES ROSS and WILLIAM BINGHAM, from Pennsylvania. - -HENRY LATIMER, from Delaware. - -HENRY TAZEWELL and STEVENS T. MASON, from Virginia. - -ALEXANDER MARTIN and TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, from North Carolina. - -PIERCE BUTLER and JACOB READ, from South Carolina. - -The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of -a PRESIDENT _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and HENRY -TAZEWELL was duly elected. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES, and acquaint him that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and -that, in the absence of the VICE PRESIDENT, they have elected HENRY -TAZEWELL President _pro tempore_. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that -a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to business; -and that, in the absence of the VICE PRESIDENT, they have elected HENRY -TAZEWELL President _pro tempore_. - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. READ and CABOT be a joint committee on the part -of the Senate, together with such committee as the House of -Representatives may appoint on their part, 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 communications that he may be -pleased to make to them. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a -quorum of the House is assembled; that they have elected JONATHAN DAYTON -their Speaker; and that they have concurred in the appointment of a -joint committee to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and -acquaint him that the two Houses of Congress are assembled, and are -ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to lay before -them. - -Mr. READ, from the joint committee appointed for that purpose, reported -that they had waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and had -notified him that a quorum of the two Houses of Congress were assembled; -and the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES acquainted the committee that he -would meet the two Houses in the Representatives' Chamber at 12 o'clock -to-morrow. - - -TUESDAY, December 8. - -HUMPHREY MARSHALL, from the State of Kentucky, attended. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the -House are now ready to meet the Senate in the Chamber of that House, to -receive such communications as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES shall -be pleased to make to them. - -Whereupon, the Senate repaired to the Chamber of the House of -Representatives for the purpose above expressed. - -The Senate then returned to their own Chamber, and a copy of the Speech -of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of Congress was -read, as follows: - - _Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - I trust I do not deceive myself, while I indulge the - persuasion that I have never met you at any period, when, - more than at the present, the situation of our public - affairs has afforded just cause for mutual congratulation, - and for inviting you to join with me in profound gratitude - to the Author of all good for the numerous and - extraordinary blessings we enjoy. - - The termination of the long, expensive, and distressing war - in which we have been engaged with certain Indians - north-west of the Ohio, is placed in the option of the - United States, by a treaty which the commander of our army - has concluded, provisionally, with the hostile tribes in - that region. - - In the adjustment of the terms, the satisfaction of the - Indians was deemed an object worthy no less of the policy - than of the liberality of the United States, as the - necessary basis of durable tranquillity. The object, it is - believed, has been fully attained. The articles agreed upon - will immediately be laid before the Senate, for their - consideration. - - Contemplating the internal situation, as well as the - external relations, of the United States, we discover equal - cause for contentment and satisfaction. While many of the - nations of Europe, with their American dependencies, have - been involved in a contest unusually bloody, exhausting, - and calamitous; in which the evils of foreign war have been - aggravated by domestic convulsions and insurrection; in - which many of the arts most useful to society have been - exposed to discouragement and decay; in which scarcity of - subsistence has embittered other sufferings; while even the - anticipations of a return of the blessings of peace and - repose are alloyed by the sense of heavy and accumulating - burdens which press upon all the departments of industry, - and threaten to clog the future springs of Government; our - favored country, happy in a striking contrast, has enjoyed - general tranquillity--a tranquillity the more satisfactory, - because maintained at the expense of no duty. Faithful to - ourselves, we have violated no obligation to others. Our - agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, prosper beyond - former example; the molestations of our trade (to prevent a - continuance of which, however, very pointed remonstrances - have been made) being overbalanced by the aggregate - benefits which it derives from a neutral position. Our - population advances with a celerity which, exceeding the - most sanguine calculations, proportionally augments our - strength and resources, and guarantees our future security. - Every part of the Union displays indications of rapid and - various improvement; and with burdens so light as scarcely - to be perceived; with resources fully adequate to our - present exigencies; with Governments founded on the genuine - principles of rational liberty; and with mild and wholesome - laws--is it too much to say, that our country exhibits a - spectacle of national happiness never surpassed, if ever - before equalled? - - _Gentlemen:_ - - Among the objects which will claim your attention in the - course of the session, a review of our Military - Establishment is not the least important. It is called for - by the events which have changed, and may be expected still - further to change, the relative situation of our frontiers. - In this review, you will doubtless allow due weight to the - considerations that the questions between us and certain - foreign powers are not yet finally adjusted; that the war - in Europe is not yet terminated; and that our Western - posts, when recovered, will demand provision for - garrisoning and securing them. A statement of our present - military force will be laid before you by the Department - of War. - - With the review of our army establishment is naturally - connected that of the militia. It will merit inquiry, what - imperfections in the existing plan further experience may - have unfolded. The subject is of so much moment, in my - estimation, as to excite a constant solicitude that the - consideration of it may be renewed until the greatest - attainable perfection shall be accomplished. Time is - wearing away some advantages for forwarding the object, - while none better deserves the persevering attention of the - public councils. - - While we indulge the satisfaction which the actual - condition of our Western borders so well authorizes, it is - necessary that we should not lose sight of an important - truth, which continually receives new confirmations, - namely: that the provisions heretofore made with a view to - the protection of the Indians from the violences of the - lawless part of our frontier inhabitants are insufficient. - It is demonstrated that these violences can now be - perpetrated with impunity; and it can need no argument to - prove, that, unless the murdering of Indians can be - restrained by bringing the murderers to condign punishment, - all the exertions of the Government to prevent destructive - retaliations by the Indians will prove fruitless, and all - our present agreeable prospects illusory. The frequent - destruction of innocent women and children, who are chiefly - the victims of retaliation, must continue to shock - humanity, and an enormous expense to drain the Treasury of - the Union. - - To enforce upon the Indians the observance of justice, it - is indispensable that there shall be competent means of - rendering justice to them. If these means can be devised by - the wisdom of Congress, and especially if there can be - added an adequate provision for supplying the necessities - of the Indians, on reasonable terms--a measure, the mention - of which I the more readily repeat, as in all the - conferences with them they urge it with solicitude--I - should not hesitate to entertain a strong hope of rendering - our tranquillity permanent. I add, with pleasure, that the - probability even of their civilization is not diminished by - the experiments which have been thus far made under the - auspices of Government. The accomplishment of this work, if - practicable, will reflect undecaying lustre on our national - character, and administer the most grateful consolations - that virtuous minds can know. - - _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_ - - The state of our revenue, with the sums which have been - borrowed and reimbursed pursuant to different acts of - Congress, will be submitted from the proper Department, - together with an estimate of the appropriations necessary - to be made for the service of the ensuing year. - - Whether measures may not be advisable to re-enforce the - provision for the redemption of the public debt, will - naturally engage your examination. Congress have - demonstrated their sense to be, and it were superfluous to - repeat mine, that whatsoever will tend to accelerate the - honorable extinction of our public debt, accords as much - with the true interest of our country as with the general - sense of our constituents. - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - The statements which will be laid before you relative to - the Mint will show the situation of that institution, and - the necessity of some further Legislative provisions for - carrying the business of it more completely into effect, - and for checking abuses which appear to be arising in - particular quarters. - - The progress of providing materials for the frigates, and - in building them; the state of the fortifications of our - harbors; the measures which have been pursued for obtaining - proper sites for arsenals, and for replenishing our - magazines with military stores; and the steps which have - been taken towards the execution of the law for opening a - trade with the Indians--will likewise be presented for the - information of Congress. - - Temperate discussion of the important subjects which may - arise in the course of the session, and mutual forbearance - where there is a difference of opinion, are too obvious and - necessary for the peace, happiness, and welfare of our - country, to need any recommendation of mine. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _December_ 8, 1795. - -_Ordered_, That Messrs. KING, ELLSWORTH, and CABOT, be a committee to -report the draft of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in -answer to his Speech this day to both Houses of Congress. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 9. - -The VICE PRESIDENT of the United States attended. - -The following motion was made by Mr. MARTIN: - - "_Resolved_, That, in conformity to a resolution of the - Senate of the United States, passed the 20th day of - February, 1794, the gallery of the Senate Chamber be - permitted to be opened every morning, subject to the - restrictions therein mentioned, a suitable gallery having - been erected and provided in the Senate Chamber, in the - late recess of Congress, for that purpose." - -And, the motion being amended, it was - -_Resolved_, That, in conformity to a resolution of the Senate of the -United States, passed the 20th day of February, 1794, the gallery of the -Senate Chamber be permitted to be opened every morning, subject to the -restrictions in said resolution mentioned. - - -THURSDAY, December 10. - -JOHN BROWN, from the State of Kentucky, and FREDERICK FRELINGHUYSEN, -from the State of New Jersey, severally attended. - -Mr. KING, from the committee appointed for that purpose, reported the -draft of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to -his Speech to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of the session, -which was read, and ordered to lie for consideration until to-morrow. - - -FRIDAY, December 11. - -ELIJAH PAINE, from the State of Vermont, attended. - -_Address to the President._ - -The Senate took into consideration the report made by the committee, of -an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in answer to his -Speech to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of the session, which -is as follows: - - SIR: It is with peculiar satisfaction that we are informed - by your Speech to the two Houses of Congress, that the long - and expensive war in which we have been engaged with the - Indians north-west of the Ohio is in a situation to be - finally terminated; and, though we view with concern the - danger of an interruption of the peace so recently - confirmed with the Creeks, we indulge the hope, that the - measures that you have adopted to prevent the same, if - followed by those Legislative provisions that justice and - humanity equally demand, will succeed in laying the - foundation of a lasting peace with the Indian tribes on the - Southern as well as on the Western frontiers. - - The confirmation of our Treaty with Morocco, and the - adjustment of a Treaty of Peace with Algiers, in - consequence of which our captive fellow-citizens shall be - delivered from slavery, are events that will prove no less - interesting to the public humanity than they will be - important in extending and securing the navigation and - commerce of our country. - - As a just and equitable conclusion of our depending - negotiations with Spain will essentially advance the - interest of both nations, and thereby cherish and confirm - the good understanding and friendship which we have at all - times desired to maintain, it will afford us real pleasure - to receive an early confirmation of our expectations on - this subject. - - The interesting prospect of our affairs, with regard to the - foreign powers between whom and the United States - controversies have subsisted, is not more satisfactory than - the review of our internal situation: if from the former we - derive an expectation of the extinguishment of all the - causes of external discord that have heretofore endangered - our tranquillity, and on terms consistent with our national - honor and safety, in the latter we discover those numerous - and wide-spread tokens of prosperity which, in so peculiar - a manner, distinguish our happy country. - - Circumstances thus every way auspicious demand our - gratitude, and sincere acknowledgments to Almighty God, and - require that we should unite our efforts in imitation of - your enlightened, firm, and persevering example, to - establish and preserve the peace, freedom, and prosperity - of our country. - - The objects which you have recommended to the notice of the - Legislature will, in the course of the session, receive our - careful attention, and, with a true zeal for the public - welfare, we shall cheerfully co-operate in every measure - that shall appear to us best calculated to promote the - same. - - JOHN ADAMS, - - _Vice President of the United States, - and President of the Senate._ - -The Address was taken up by paragraphs. - -The fourth and fifth paragraphs were moved to be struck out by Mr. -MASON.[60] - -Mr. MASON observed, that he had hoped nothing contained in the Address -reported as an answer to the PRESIDENT's Speech, would have been such as -to force the Senate to precipitate decisions. The two clauses he -objected to disappointed him in that hope. They were calculated to bring -again into view the important subject which occupied the Senate during -their June session. This he conceived could answer no good purpose; the -minority on that occasion were not now to be expected to recede from the -opinions they then held, and they could not therefore join in the -indirect self-approbation which the majority appeared to wish for, and -which was most certainly involved in the two clauses which he should -hope would be struck out. If his motion were agreed to, the remainder of -the Address would, in his opinion, stand unexceptionable. He did not -see, for his part, that our situation was every way auspicious. -Notwithstanding the treaty, our trade is grievously molested. - -Mr. KING observed, that the principal features observable in the answer -reported to the PRESIDENT's Address, were to keep up that harmony of -intercourse which ought to subsist between the Legislature and the -PRESIDENT, and to express confidence in the undiminished firmness and -love of country which always characterize our chief Executive -Magistrate. He objected to striking out especially the first clause, -because founded on undeniable truth. It only declares that our -prospects, as to our external relations, are not more satisfactory than -a review of our internal situation would prove. Was not this -representation true, he asked; could it be controverted? This clause, he -contended, contained nothing reasonably objectionable; it did not say as -much as the second, to which only most of the objections of the member -up before him applied, an answer to which he should defer, expecting -that a question would be put on each in order. - -The Chair requested that the motion should be reduced to writing. Mr. -MASON accordingly reduced it to writing, and it went to striking out -both clauses at once. - -Mr. MASON agreed most cordially that the situation of our external -relations were not more a cause of joy than our situation at home. But -the obvious meaning of the clause, he conceived, was an indirect -approval of our situation relative to external concerns; and to this he -could not give his assent, as he did not consider their aspect as -prosperous or auspicious. - -Mr. BUTLER said, that when the committee was appointed to draft an -answer, he hoped they would have used such general terms as to have -secured a unanimous vote. He was willing to give the Chief Magistrate -such an answer as respect to his station entitled him to, but not such a -one as would do violence to his regard for the constitution and his duty -to his constituents. He could not approve of long and detailed answers, -however unexceptionable the Speech might be in matter, and however -respectable the character might be from whom it came. He had hoped, from -the peculiar situation of the country, and of the Senate, that nothing -would have been brought forward in the answer, on the subject which -agitated the June Executive session, calculated to wound the feelings of -members. He had been disappointed; it was evident that some members of -the Senate could not give their voice in favor of the Address in its -present shape, without involving themselves in the most palpable -inconsistency. - -He had long since, for his own part, declared himself against every -article of the treaty, because in no instance is it bottomed on -reciprocity, the only honorable basis. After this declaration, how could -he, or those who coincided in opinion with him, agree to the present -Address without involving themselves in the most palpable inconsistency? - -The sentence objected to, notwithstanding the explanation of the -gentleman from New York, appeared to him so worded as to lead the -citizens at large to believe that the spoliations on our commerce were -drawing to a fortunate close. This was not, he conceived, warranted by -the existing state of things. Indeed, he protested, he knew no more of -the actual situation of the treaty negotiation than the remotest farmer -in the Union; could he then declare, he asked, that it was drawing to a -happy close? Indeed, from the latest information received, far from our -situation having been ameliorated by the negotiations of our Executive, -he conceived our trade as much in jeopardy as ever. - -As to the internal prosperity, he owned there was some cause for -congratulation; but even in this his conviction could not carry him as -far as the clauses in the Address seemed to go. In a pecuniary point of -view, the country had made a visible progress; but he saw in it no basis -of permanent prosperity. There were no circumstances attendant on it -that gave a fair hope that the prosperity would be permanent. The chief -cause of our temporary pecuniary prosperity is the war in Europe, which -occasions the high prices our produce at present commands; when that is -terminated, those advantageous prices will of course fall. - -Mr. B. now came to speak of the second objectional clause. He regretted -whenever a question was brought forward that involved personality in the -most indirect manner. He wished always to speak to subjects unconnected -with men; but the wording of the clause was unfortunately such as to -render allusion to official character unavoidable. He objected -principally to the epithet _firm_, introduced into the latter clause, as -applied to the Supreme Executive. Why _firmness_? he asked. To what? or -to whom? Is it the _manly_ demand of restitution made of Great Britain -for her accumulated injuries that called forth the praise? for his own -part he could discern no firmness there. Is it for the _undaunted_ and -_energetic_ countenance of the cause of France, in her struggle for -freeing herself from despotic shackles? He saw no _firmness_ displayed -on that occasion. Where then is it to be found? Was it in the opposition -to the minority of the Senate and the general voice of the people -against the treaty that that _firmness_ was displayed? If it is that -_firmness_ in opposing the will of the people, which is intended to be -extolled, the vote shall never, said Mr. B., leave the walls of the -Senate with _my_ approbation. - -Mr. READ said, he was not in the habit of giving a silent vote, and, as -many of his constituents were adverse to the instrument to which he had -given his assent, he thought this a fit opportunity to say something on -the subject. - -Gentlemen on the other side had spoken of their feelings; did they -suppose, he asked, that those who were in the majority had not feelings? -Also, gentlemen declared they would not recede from their former -determinations; did they expect that the majority would recede? - -He had, he said, taken the question of the treaty in all its aspects, -and considered it maturely, and though he lamented that he differed in -opinion on that subject with his colleague, and a portion of the people -of his State, he nevertheless remained convinced that the ratification -of it was advisable: it rescued the country from war and its desolating -horrors. - -After reading that part of the PRESIDENT's Speech to which the clauses -objected to were an echo, he asked, whether any one could say, under the -conviction that the measures of Government had prevented a war, that our -view of foreign relations was not consolatory? On all hands, he -observed, the idea of a war was deprecated; both sides of the House -wished to avoid it; then is it not a consolatory reflection to all that -its horrors have been averted? Is there a man who does not believe that, -had the treaty not been ratified, we should have had war? If the country -had been plunged into a war, would it be as flourishing as it is? - -The trifling vexations our commerce has sustained are not to compare to -the evils of hostility. What good end could have been answered by a war? -The Address, in the part under discussion, says no more than that we -rejoice at the prospect that the blessings of peace will be preserved; -and does not this expectation exist? - -Great Britain, in the plenitude of her power, had availed herself of the -right she had under the law of nations, of seizing enemies' goods in -neutral vessels; but has allowed compensation to some Americans, and a -system of mild measures on our part is the best security for further. - -But the Senate and the PRESIDENT are the constitutional treaty-making -powers. If mistaken in their decisions, they cannot be accused of having -been misled by sudden and immatured impressions. He should conceive -himself unfit to fill a chair in the Senate, if he suffered himself to -be carried away by such impressions. The people could not, in their town -meetings, deprived of proper information, possibly form an opinion that -deserved weight, and it was the duty of the Executive not to be shaken -in their determination by tumultuous proceedings from without. Upon this -ground he much approved the PRESIDENT's conduct, and thought it entitled -to the epithet, firm. - -In local questions, affecting none but the interest of his constituents, -he should attend to their voice, but on great national points, he did -not consider himself as a Representative from South Carolina, but as a -Senator for the Union. In questions of this last kind, even if the -wishes of his constituents were unequivocally made known to him, he -should not conceive himself bound to sacrifice his opinions to theirs. -He viewed the PRESIDENT as standing in this situation, and though he -might hear the opinions of the people from every part of the United -States, he should not sacrifice to them his own conviction; in this line -of conduct he has shown his firmness, and deserves to be complimented -for it by the Senate. - -Mr. ELLSWORTH was opposed to striking out. The clause records a fact, -and if struck out, the Senate deny it. The PRESIDENT asserts it; in the -Address reported, the Senate assent; a motion is made to strike out; is -it because the truth of it is doubted? It cannot be called an -unimportant fact, therefore its omission will not be imputed to -oversight. The latter part of the clause expresses our gratitude to -Almighty God. Will the Senate refuse to make an acknowledgment of that -kind? Do they not admit that He is the source of all good, and can they -refuse to acknowledge it? And if so, is it possible that, in admitting -the fact and expressing the sentiment, which so naturally flows from it, -the Senate should wound the feelings of any friend to his country? - -The truth of the fact is as clear as that the sun now shines; the -sentiment is unexceptionable; he, therefore, recommended to his friend -the mover, not to insist upon striking out merely, but that he should -vary the motion, and propose a substitute. - -To bring the mind to the point with precision, it was necessary to -attend to the wording of the clause. He read it. As to the signification -of that part which relates to our foreign concerns, he did not consider -it as hypothetical, but a positive declaration of a conviction that -their situation is satisfactory, and on that ground he wished to meet -the question. - -The clause objected to expresses an expectation that the causes of -external disagreement which have unhappily existed, will be peaceably -done away. He said he had that expectation; many have it not. Those who -have it not will negative the clause; those who have it will vote in its -favor; the result will be the sense of a majority; the Senate could not -be expected, more than on other occasions, to be unanimous; if the -declarations contained in those clauses are supported, they will be -considered as the sense of the majority of the Senate; others may -dissent; but because unanimity could not be obtained, it was no reason -why the majority should give a virtual negative to the declaration which -they conceived founded on truth. - -Mr. TAZEWELL said, the discussion had taken a turn different from that -which he expected when he heard the motion. He understood the motion at -the time it was made, and still so understood it, as not intending to -question the propriety of any thing which was contained in the -PRESIDENT's communication to both Houses of Congress. But from what had -been said, (by Mr. READ, of South Carolina,) that part of the answer to -the PRESIDENT's communication which had given rise to the motion, was -intended to have a further operation than he originally believed. He -asked what had given rise to the practice of returning an answer of any -kind to the PRESIDENT's communication to Congress in the form of an -Address? There was nothing, he said, in the constitution, or in any of -the fundamental rules of the Federal Government, which required that -ceremony from either branch of the Congress. The practice was but an -imitation of the ceremonies used upon like occasions in other countries, -and was neither required by the constitution, nor authorized by the -principles upon which our Government was erected. But having obtained, -he did not intend now to disturb it. To allow the utmost latitude to the -principle which had begotten the practice, it could only tolerate the -ceremony as a compliment to the Chief Magistrate. It could not be -permitted to arrest all opinions previous to regular discussions, nor to -operate as a means of pledging members to the pursuit of a particular -course, which subsequent and more full inquiries might show to be -extremely improper. Every answer, therefore, to the PRESIDENT's -communication ought to be drawn in terms extremely general, neither -seducing the PRESIDENT into a belief that this House would pursue a -general recommendation into points not at first contemplated by them, -nor pledge themselves to the world that that state of things was just, -which time had not permitted them thoroughly to examine. The clauses now -under consideration had, at least in one instance, deviated from this -principle. They declare to the world, "That the interesting prospect of -our affairs with regard to the foreign powers, between whom and the -United States controversies have subsisted, is not more satisfactory -than the review of our internal situation." The communications from the -PRESIDENT have not uttered so bold a sentiment, nor is there any thing -in those communications that justifies the assertion of this fact. -Placing the treaty with Great Britain out of the question, which seems -to have been the uppermost consideration when this sentence was penned, -the seizure of our provision vessels since the signature of that treaty, -and the unwarrantable imprisonment of our seamen, are acts which cloud -our prosperity and happiness. The minds of the Americans must be brought -to consider these things as trivial incidents in our political affairs, -before the sentence under consideration can be approved. He said he -must, therefore, vote for the motion to strike out the two clauses of -the answer, in order that some more fit expressions might then be -introduced to succeed them. He hoped the answer might be couched in -terms just and delicate towards the PRESIDENT, without wounding the -feelings of any Senator; and he believed both might be done without any -difficulty, after the two clauses were expunged. - -After some further observations from Messrs. MASON, BUTLER, and -BLOODWORTH, in which the latter expressed the opinion that he did -conceive the terms of our peace with Great Britain consistent with the -dignity and honor of the United States, the question was put, and -decided for striking out--ayes 8, noes 14. - -On a further attempt to amend one of the clauses some conversation took -place more remarkable for ingenuity than interesting for solidity, being -chiefly a debate upon words. The Senate divided on it--7 to 15. - -On the question, of agreeing to the Address, it was carried--14 to 8, as -follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, - Frelinghuysen, King, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, Paine, - Read, Ross, Strong, and Trumbull. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Butler, Langdon, Martin, - Mason, Robinson, and Tazewell. - -_Ordered_, That the committee who prepared the Address wait on the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and desire him to acquaint the Senate at -what time and place it will be most convenient for him that it should be -presented. - -Mr. KING reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that he would receive the Address of -the Senate to-morrow at 12 o'clock. Whereupon, resolved, that the Senate -will, to-morrow at 12 o'clock, wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES accordingly. - - -SATURDAY, December 12. - -Agreeably to the resolution of yesterday, the Senate waited on the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and the VICE PRESIDENT, in their name, -presented the Address then agreed to. - -To which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was pleased to make the -following reply: - - GENTLEMEN: With real pleasure I receive your Address, - recognizing the prosperous situation of our public affairs, - and giving assurances of your careful attention to the - objects demanding Legislative consideration; and that, with - a true zeal for the public welfare, you will cheerfully - co-operate in every measure which shall appear to you best - calculated to promote the same. - - But I derive peculiar satisfaction from your concurrence - with me in the expressions of gratitude to Almighty God, - which a review of the auspicious circumstances that - distinguish our happy country have excited; and I trust the - sincerity of our acknowledgments will be evinced by a union - of efforts to establish and preserve its peace, freedom, - and prosperity. - - G. WASHINGTON. - -The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and soon after adjourned. - - -MONDAY, December 14. - -JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey, attended. - - -TUESDAY, December 15. - -AARON BURR, from New York, and JOHN VINING, from Delaware, severally -attended. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 16. - -WILLIAM BRADFORD, from Rhode Island, attended. - - -FRIDAY, December 18. - -GEORGE WALTON, appointed a Senator of the United States by the Executive -of the State of Georgia, in place of JAMES JACKSON, resigned, produced -his credentials, and, the oath required by law being administered, he -took his seat in the Senate. - - -MONDAY, January 4. - -The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES, by Mr. Dandridge, his Secretary. Captain Sedam, of the first -Sub-legion, bearing the colors mentioned in the Message: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - A Letter from the Minister Plenipotentiary of the French - Republic, received on the 22d of the last month, covered an - Address, dated the 21st of October, 1794, from the - Committee of Public Safety to the Representatives of the - United States in Congress; and also informed me that he was - instructed by the Committee to present to the United States - the Colors of France. I therefore proposed to receive them - last Friday, the first day of the new year, a day of - general joy and congratulation. On that day the Minister of - the French Republic delivered the Colors with an Address, - to which I returned an answer. By the latter, the Senate - will see that I have informed the Minister that the Colors - will be deposited with the archives of the United States. - But it seemed to me proper previously to exhibit to the two - Houses of Congress these evidences of the continued - friendship of the French Republic, together with the - sentiments expressed by me on the occasion in behalf of the - United States. They are herewith communicated. - - G. WASHINGTON - - UNITED STATES, _January_ 4, 1796. - -The Message and papers were read; after which the colors were withdrawn, -and the Message and papers ordered to lie for consideration. - - -TUESDAY, January 5. - -_Presentation of French Flag._ - -A motion was made by Mr. TAZEWELL, seconded by Mr. LANGDON, that it be-- - - "_Resolved by the Senate of the United States in Congress - assembled_, That the President be informed the Senate have - received, with the purest pleasure, the evidences of the - continued friendship of the French Republic, which - accompanied his Message of yesterday. - - "That he be requested to assure that magnanimous nation, - through the proper organ, that the Senate unite with him in - all the feelings expressed to the Minister of France, on - the presentation of the Colors of his nation, and devoutly - wish that this symbol of the triumphs and enfranchisement - of that great people, given as a pledge of faithful - friendship, and placed among the evidences and memorials of - the freedom and independence of the United States, may - contribute to cherish and perpetuate the sincere affection - by which the two Republics are so happily united." - -Mr. ELLSWORTH moved that these resolutions should lie on the table until -to-morrow, that members should have an opportunity of perusing -attentively the papers accompanying the Message of the PRESIDENT. - -Mr. BUTLER said, that he should very reluctantly, in general cases, -oppose a motion of the kind now made; but, on the present occasion, he -could not give it his assent. If the resolutions were intricate, or by -the question the judgment of the Senate could be committed, he should -accord in the wish expressed by the mover; but, as the resolutions go -merely to an expression of the sentiments of the House respecting the -French Republic, their feelings and judgment must be as ripe for such -expression now as they can be at any future period. It was not like a -law that was to affect the Senate hereafter; it had nothing to do with -the internal situation of the country or municipal regulations; but they -only went to express a sympathetic feeling for the French Republic, and -a wish to see them enjoy every happiness under the form of government -they have lately chosen. - -This cannot commit the Senate, he conceived. If the motion for -postponement prevailed, it might convey a distrust of the sense of the -Senate respecting that Republic. He felt a lively sense towards that -nation on account of the glorious cause in which they had embarked; of -their gallantry and spirit in their arduous struggle to place men upon a -footing they were entitled to, raising them from a state of the most -abject and debasing slavery. - -He declared himself always ready to express his feelings on the -magnanimity of such a people. If other members of the Senate possessed -not those feelings, they could now give the resolutions their negative. -He did not wish for a postponement, as it might be viewed as in a manner -slighting the Republic. - -Mr. ELLSWORTH believed there was no real difference of opinion on the -subject. All felt an ardent friendship for the French; but one mode of -expressing it might be more proper than another. Besides, it might be a -doubt whether an expression of the feelings of the Senate on this -occasion was necessary--the Representatives had already spoken. He was -not, as the member who spoke before him, ready on all occasions to -express his sentiments; but only on fit occasions, and then he wished to -do it in the most proper manner. The operations of his mind, he -confessed, were slow. He wished more time for the perusal of the -documents laid before the Senate by the President. - -Mr. LIVERMORE was also in favor of postponement. - -Mr. LANGDON observed, that since members did so earnestly require time, -he should not urge an immediate decision; he should no longer object to -a postponement till to-morrow. He was happy to hear gentlemen say there -was no difference of sentiment upon the present occasion; he hoped that, -upon subjects relative to France, this might always be the case, and -that the Senate would not confine itself to empty professions of -attachment, but would evince it by substantial deeds. - -Mr. TAZEWELL did not wish to press the business to an immediate -decision, since members desired time. He confessed he did not expect a -motion for a postponement would be made, as the resolutions he offered -contained nothing more than the PRESIDENT had expressed on the occasion. -However, if it was wished that the Senate should express their -sentiments in still stronger language than the PRESIDENT, he should not -object. - -The opposition to the motion for postponement being withdrawn, it was -agreed to. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 6. - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday on the -Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the 4th instant, and -the presentation of the flag of the French Republic; and, - -On motion of Mr. CABOT, seconded by Mr. ELLSWORTH, to expunge these -words from the second paragraph of the motion: "that he be requested to -assure that magnanimous nation, through the proper organ"-- - -Mr. STRONG was in favor of striking out. He observed that the -communication made to the Senate by the PRESIDENT consisted of two -distinct parts, the letter from the French Committee of Safety and the -address accompanying the flag. In the letter not one word was said about -the flag; it was written in October, '94, and there was probably then no -idea of sending one. The letter and the flag only happened to be -delivered at the same time; there was no other connection between them. -The letter, he said, was in answer to one from this country, and was -meant to close a complimentary correspondence. It required no answer; it -would puzzle any one to make an answer to it. An attempt was made by the -resolution offered, which proved it impossible to answer it. The -resolution forsook the contents of the letter, which, he repeated, -closed the correspondence. The United States had presented to the -National Convention our flag; or rather our Minister (and he was -unwilling to question the propriety of his so doing) presented it on -behalf of this Government; a French flag was sent in return; then the -propriety of an answer on this ground became the sole question. This -flag had been delivered to the PRESIDENT, who made an answer on the -presentation of it--a complete and perfect answer. He communicated his -answer to the Senate. Then was it proper, he asked, that the Executive -should be requested to make a second answer, and nearly in the same -words? The PRESIDENT, in his answer, expressly says, that he speaks not -only his own sentiments, but those of the citizens at large, including, -no doubt, the Senate. In this situation of the transaction nothing can -be proper to be done by the Senate but to express their opinion of the -propriety of his answer; and this would be accomplished by adopting the -substance of the resolution, after striking out the words proposed. - -There could be (he concluded by observing) no difference of feeling in -the Senate on the occasion. The only difference was in the mode of -expressing it, and he inclined, for the reasons given, to that which was -the object of the motion for striking out. - -Mr. ELLSWORTH was also of opinion that the subject divided itself into -two distinct parts. The first object was an expression of the pleasure -of the Senate at this new evidence of the friendship of France, and -joining with the PRESIDENT in all the feelings he had expressed on the -occasion. This would be effectually done by entering on the journals the -resolution as proposed to be amended. The PRESIDENT received the flag -and answered, then communicated the transaction to the Senate. - -It appeared, by the papers communicated, he contended, that there was no -connection between the letter of the Committee of Public Safety and the -flag. He would not say that both were not very important transactions, -but they were disconnected. The letter was written much antecedent to -the sending of the flag--it was written in '94, and was intended to -close a correspondence. The correspondence began by an address from the -Convention, while Robespierre was an active member of it. This address -was to Congress: the PRESIDENT transmitted it to each House, and they -sent it back to the Executive, requesting he would answer it, with -expressions of the friendly dispositions of the United States towards -France. The resolutions of the Houses and the letter of the Executive -were transmitted through Mr. Monroe. The letter now in the view of the -Senate is an answer to that, and closes the complimentary -correspondence, if it ever can close. Propriety did not require another -word from the Senate; indeed, decency did not admit it, for it could not -be contended that the correspondence should be kept up _ad infinitum_. - -As to the flag, how can it require an answer from the Senate? It was not -presented to them by the French Minister, but to the PRESIDENT, who had -answered, not only for himself, but for the citizens of the United -States; and he imagined it would not be contended that the members of -the Senate were not citizens. - -It is not advanced, he said, that the PRESIDENT did not express the -sentiments of the Senate in the answer to the Minister; on the contrary, -his words are borrowed in this resolution. But it is wished he should -answer again in the same strain, and this was, in his opinion, neither -necessary nor even proper. - -Mr. ELLSWORTH next combated the resolution as originally offered as -unconstitutional. Nothing, he contended, could be found in the -constitution to authorize either branch of the Legislature to keep up -any kind of correspondence with a foreign nation. To Congress were -given the powers of legislation and the right of declaring war. If -authority beyond this is assumed, however trifling the encroachment at -first, where will it stop? It might be said, that this was a mere matter -of ceremony and form, and, therefore, could do no harm. A correspondence -with foreign nations was a business of difficulty and delicacy--the -peace and tranquillity of a country may hinge on it. Shall the Senate, -because they may think it in one case trifling, or conceive the power -ought to be placed in them, assume it? If it was not specially delegated -by the constitution, the Senate might, perhaps, but it is positively -placed in the hands of the Executive. The people who sent us here, (said -Mr. E.) placed their confidence in the PRESIDENT in matters of this -nature, and it does not belong to the Senate to assume it. - -So forcibly, he said, were both Houses impressed with the impropriety of -the Legislature corresponding with any foreign power, that, when it was -announced to them that the unfortunate Louis XVI. had accepted the -constitution of '89, the communication was sent back to the PRESIDENT, -with a request that he would answer it on their behalf, with -congratulations and best wishes. - -But even this, he considered, they had not strictly a right to do. It -was only saving appearances. Neither branch had a right to dictate to -the PRESIDENT what he should answer. The constitution left the whole -business in his breast. It was wrong to place him in the dilemma of -disobliging the Legislature or sacrificing his own discretion. But if -such practices had inadvertently been followed, it was full time to -secede from them. - -He recapitulated, in a few words, and concluded, by observing, that -should the motion for striking out prevail, members would still be in -order to amend the resolution, if they chose, by adding to the warmth of -expression it already contained. - -Mr. BUTLER considered the situation into which the member up before him -seemed desirous that the Senate should be placed, as highly degrading; -they were to be deprived of the right of expressing their own -sentiments, they were to have no voice, no will, no opinion of their -own, but such as it would please the Executive to express for them. - -The only fault he found in the resolve was, that it was not full and -expressive enough. He observed, that it appeared the studied desire of -one part of the House to cut off all communication between the people of -the United States and the people of the French Republic. Their -representatives are now told, that they can have no will, no voice, but -through the Executive. Their constituents never intended that they -should be placed in this ridiculous point of view, and he declared he -never could sit under it silently. - -He turned to the journals of the Senate to show that in the proceedings -in the case of the answer to the communication from Robespierre and -others, there was a considerable division in the Senate, and the mode -adopted was by a majority only; but did not meet the sense of the Senate -very generally. - -Upon the presentation of the flag to the PRESIDENT, the Minister -particularly observes, that it is for the people of the United States. -The PRESIDENT in his answer, speaks of himself and his own feelings. He -read part of his answer--"Born in a land of Liberty," &c. He does -intimate, he observed, in a cursory manner, that he trusts he speaks the -sentiments of his fellow-citizens: but does not attempt to make any -professions of either branch of the Legislature, thinking, no doubt, -that when the subject came before them, they would speak for themselves. - -Suppose, he asked, that the expression of friendship contained in the -PRESIDENT's Address on the occasion, fell short of the feelings of the -Senate, would they, he asked, adopt the expressions for their own? For -his own part, he declared, he could not leave it to others to speak his -sentiments, but chose to reserve that right to himself. Even if no -communication had been received from the French Republic, no token of -attachment, the present period in their affairs, the establishment of a -new government, would warrant an address of congratulation. There could -be no impropriety in it, unless there were objections to drawing nigher -to the Republic. Besides, the address of the Committee of Safety was -certainly intended for the Legislature, being directed to the -Representatives, unless it could be denied that the Senate were -Representatives of the people of the United States. - -There was nothing in the constitution, he contended, that could prevent -the Legislature from expressing their sentiments: it was not an -Executive act, but a mere complimentary answer to a complimentary -presentation. If this right was denied them, where would the principle -stop? The Senate might be made in time mere automata. It was as proper, -he contended, for the Senate to express an opinion on the occasion as -for the PRESIDENT or the House of Representatives. - -He concluded by observing, that the resolution as offered, said as -little as could be said on the occasion, and he never could consent to -the striking out, which would cause it to be entered only on the -journal, and would be an indirect slight of the French Republic, as the -sentiments of the Senate would not be communicated to them. - -Mr. TAZEWELL was happy to find no difference in the Senate as to the -substance of the resolution. As the form, however, had been made matter -of debate, some importance had been given to it which its intrinsic -consequence perhaps did not deserve, and it became the Senate to weigh -well their decision. It certainly, he said, could not be unknown to the -Senate, that unfavorable impressions have travelled abroad respecting -their feelings and sentiments towards the French, and he suggested to -their consideration whether if the present motion for striking out -prevailed, even in the face of their own precedents, it would not give -countenance to the surmise. On a former occasion, he stated, a -communication was made to the Senate through the PRESIDENT, informing -that the King of France had accepted the Crown under the constitution of -1789. The Senate were not content on that occasion with barely approving -what the PRESIDENT had done, but requested the PRESIDENT to say in their -behalf, that they were happy at the event, and to assure the king of -their good will for the prosperity of the French nation and his own. -What difference, he asked, was there on that occasion and the present, -when the French just adopted and organized a new government? Will it not -be said, he asked, that the robes of royalty have charms with the -Senate, which the humble habiliments of Democracy do not possess in -their eyes, if on the present occasion they should deviate from a -precedent established before royalty was abolished? This would be -naturally implied, and the Senate, he conceived, should avoid the -imputation. There was no necessity pleaded in favor of striking out; if -the motion was not insisted on, it would remove impressions which it was -useful should be removed, and which he trusted would be removed. - -He dwelt on the impropriety of the Senate's rejecting a form of -proceeding in this case, not only sanctioned by their own precedent, but -by the practice of both the PRESIDENT and Senate. Why, especially, he -asked, should they give rise to invidious comparisons between themselves -and the other branch? He hoped the motion for striking out would not -prevail. - -Mr. ELLSWORTH conceived there existed a material difference between the -present case and that cited by the member last up. The communication was -then to Congress, now to the PRESIDENT, who had only given an account of -the transaction to the Senate. He added, however, that the line of -conduct pursued by the Senate on the former occasion did not meet his -approbation; they expressed hopes which he never thought could be -realized, and in the event it proved so; for before the sentiments of -the Senate could cross the Atlantic, the unfortunate king and -constitution were both over-thrown. This, he argued, should make the -Senate wary in their proceedings in analogous cases. Upon the -communication from Robespierre, Barrere, and others, the Senate were -more cautious, they said nothing about the constitution, but only -requested the PRESIDENT to express in their behalf the sentiments of -friendship, &c., which the Senate entertained for France. The Senate -gave the PRESIDENT a short text on that occasion; and he wrote according -to his own discretion, and perhaps expressed more than the Senate would -have said. If a short text was given, this objection occurred; if the -Senate amplified, then they dictated improperly to the PRESIDENT what he -should write. - -The example of the House of Representatives had been mentioned; he -conceived it was no rule of proceeding for the Senate. The fact was, -that the resolve carried in that House was upon a very slight view -indeed of the papers communicated. Indeed, it would appear upon the face -of it, that it was penned before the papers were read. This was, in his -opinion, no example for imitation; the Senate ought to proceed with -their usual deliberation. - -It had been said that doubts had gone abroad, whether the Senate were -friendly to France. Those doubts had been raised by writers among us, -the same who also endeavor to convince the Americans that the friendship -of France towards them was not cordial. This must appear unfounded from -the proceeding now the object of debate, and the former suspicion must -be removed by an insertion of the substance of the resolution now before -the Senate on their journals. - -Mr. TAZEWELL said a few words to show that there was no difference -between the case he had already cited, the proceeding of the Senate, -when they expressed their satisfaction at the manner in which the -National Convention had honored the memory of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, and the -present case. - -Mr. Ross differed. In the former instances, the PRESIDENT made the -original communications to the Senate before he had answered them; now -he has answered and only communicates an account of the transaction. - -Mr. BURR was against striking out. The National Convention, he observed, -might, when they received the answer to their first communication, have -said, as is now said on the floor of the Senate, that the correspondence -there ended, and that it was not necessary to make us a reply; but they -acted differently, and he hoped the Senate would acknowledge the receipt -of their pledge of friendship. Indeed he said, he could not see that any -great harm would arise in the two branches of the Legislature -interchanging even once a year a letter of friendship and good will with -the Republic. It was objected that the present resolution was no answer -to the letter. A few lines would make it so, and they might easily be -added. The omission did not prove, as had been asserted by one member, -that it was impossible to answer it. That it was not impossible was -testified by the proceedings of the other branch. He did not intend to -slight the dignity of the Senate, however, he said, by quoting the -proceedings of the other House as a binding rule of proceeding for this; -but their proceedings certainly proved the possibility of making an -answer; and besides, there was full as much propriety in looking for -precedents in their conduct, as in the proceedings of a British -Parliament. Each, however, in their place might deserve weight, though -not implicit reliance. - -He advocated the rights of the Senate to answer for themselves, and the -propriety of acknowledging the receipt of the Colors, which were not -sent to the Executive exclusively. - -He concluded by citing the Senate's own precedents in analogous cases, -and he hoped that it would not be insisted that the practice of two or -three successive years deserved to be laid to the charge of -inadvertency. - -After a few words more from Messrs. STRONG, BURR, READ, and BUTLER, the -yeas and nays were called upon striking out, which were taken and -stood--yeas 16, nays 8, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, - Gunn, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, Paine, Read, Ross, - Rutherford, Strong, Trumbull, and Walton. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Langdon, - Martin, Robinson, and Tazewell. - -Whereupon it was - -_Resolved_, unanimously, that the PRESIDENT be informed the Senate have -received, with the purest pleasure, the evidences of the continued -friendship of the French Republic, which accompanied his Message of the -4th inst. - -That the Senate unite with him in all the feelings expressed to the -Minister of France on the presentation of the Colors of his nation, and -devoutly wish that this symbol of the triumphs and enfranchisement of -that great people, given as a pledge of faithful friendship, and placed -among the evidences and memorials of the freedom and independence of the -United States, may contribute to cherish and perpetuate the sincere -affection by which the two Republics are so happily united. - -_Ordered_, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the PRESIDENT -OF THE UNITED STATES. - - -MONDAY, May 9. - -On motion, that a paper purporting to be the appointment of WILLIAM -BLOUNT and WILLIAM COCKE, respectively, to seats in the Senate, should -be read, it was agreed that the motion be postponed until to-morrow. - - -TUESDAY, May 10. - -_New State of Tennessee._ - -The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee to -whom was referred the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of -the 8th of April last, respecting a new State south of the river Ohio; -together with the motion for amendment, made on the 11th; and on the -question to agree to the proposed amendment, it passed in the negative. - - -WEDNESDAY, May 23. - -_The Proposed State of Tennessee._ - -The Senate resumed the consideration, in paragraphs, of the bill laying -out into one State the territory ceded by the State of North Carolina to -the United States, and providing for an enumeration of the inhabitants -thereof. - -A letter, signed William Blount and William Cocke, was read, stating -that they have been duly and legally elected Senators to represent the -State of Tennessee in the Senate. - -On motion, - - "That Mr. Blount and Mr. Cocke, who claim to be Senators of - the United States, be received as spectators, and that - chairs be provided for that purpose until the final - decision of the Senate shall be given on the bill proposing - to admit the South-western Territory into the Union:" - -A motion was made to refer the consideration thereof to a committee; and -it passed in the negative. - -On motion to agree to the original motion, it passed in the -affirmative--yeas 12, nays 11, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Foster, - Henry, Langdon, Martin, Potts, Robinson, Tattnall, and - Tazewell. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Gunn, Latimer, Livermore, - Marshall, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong, and Trumbull. - -After debate, the further consideration of the bill last mentioned was -postponed until to-morrow. - -A letter from RUFUS KING was read, stating that he had accepted the -appointment of Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of London, and -resigning his seat in the Senate. - - -THURSDAY, May 26. - -_New State of Tennessee._ - -The bill laying out into one State the territory ceded by the State of -North Carolina to the United States, and providing for an enumeration of -the inhabitants thereof, was read the third time. - -On motion, that the bill be amended, so that the State be called and -known by the name of Tennessee, it passed in the negative. - -And, after agreeing to sundry amendments, on motion, that the following -be an additional section to the bill: - - "_And be it further enacted_, That if on the returns by the - Supervisor of the Revenue for the District of Tennessee, as - directed by this act, it shall appear to the PRESIDENT OF - THE UNITED STATES that the territory by this act laid out, - and formed into a State, doth contain sixty thousand free - inhabitants, that then it shall be lawful for the - President, by his Proclamation, to declare the same; and - that, in that event, and on their forming a constitution - consistent with the ordinance of Congress of the thirteenth - day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, - the said State, by the name and style of 'The State of - Tennessee,' shall be received and admitted into the Union - as a new and entire member of the United States of America. - And, until an enumeration shall be made, under the - authority of Congress, for the purpose of apportioning - Representatives, the said State of Tennessee shall be - entitled to choose one Representative:" - -A motion was made to amend this motion, by striking out the following -words: - - "And on their forming a constitution consistent with the - ordinance of Congress of the thirteenth day of July, one - thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven:" - - It passed in the negative--yeas 11, nays 12, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Henry, - Langdon, Livermore, Martin, Robinson, Tattnall, and - Tazewell. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Foster, Gunn, Latimer, - Marshall, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong, and - Trumbull. - -And, on the question to agree to the motion without amendment, it passed -in the negative--yeas 10, nays 12, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Burr, Foster, Gunn, Henry, Latimer, - Livermore, Martin, Potts, Tattnall, and Trumbull. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bloodworth, Bradford, Brown, - Langdon, Marshall, Read, Robinson, Ross, Rutherford, - Strong, and Tazewell. - -On the question, that the bill pass, it was determined in the -affirmative--yeas 15, nays 8, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Brown, Foster, Gunn, - Latimer, Martin, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong, - Tattnall, Tazewell, and Trumbull. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Burr, Butler, Henry, Langdon, - Livermore, Marshall, and Robinson. - -So it was resolved, that this bill pass; that it be engrossed; and that -the title thereof be "An act laying out into one State the territory -ceded by the State of North Carolina to the United States, and providing -for an enumeration of the inhabitants thereof." - - -TUESDAY, May 31. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the -House have passed a bill, entitled "An act to alter the time of the next -annual meeting of Congress;" in which they desire the concurrence of the -Senate. They insist on their amendment, disagreed to by the Senate, to -the bill, entitled "An act laying out into one State the territory ceded -by the State of North Carolina to the United States, and providing for -the enumeration of the inhabitants thereof;" ask a conference thereon, -and have appointed managers at the same, on their part. They agree to -all the amendments of the Senate to the bill, entitled, "An act -regulating the grants of land appropriated for military services, and -for the Society of United Brethren, for propagating the Gospel among the -Heathen;" except to the last, to which they disagree. - -_New State of Tennessee._ - -The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution of the House of -Representatives, desiring a conference on the bill, entitled, "An act -laying out into one State the territory ceded by the State of North -Carolina to the United States, and providing for an enumeration of the -inhabitants thereof." - -On motion, to postpone the further consideration thereof until the next -session of Congress, it passed in the negative--yeas 10, nays 13, as -follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Foster, Latimer, Potts, - Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong, and Trumbull. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Gunn, - Henry, Langdon, Livermore, Marshall, Martin, Robinson, - Tattnall, and Tazewell. - -_Resolved_, That the Senate agree to the proposed conference, and that -Messrs. BURR and STRONG be managers at the same on their part. - -Mr. BURR, from the joint committee of conference on the bill, entitled -"An act laying out into one State the territory ceded by the State of -North Carolina to the United States, and providing for an enumeration of -the inhabitants thereof," reported, as the opinion of the majority of -the joint committee, that the Senate recede from their disagreement to -the amendment of the House of Representatives. Whereupon, - -_Resolved_, That the Senate recede from their disagreement to the said -amendment. - -A motion was made by Mr. Burr, as follows: - - "_Resolved_, That any enumeration of the inhabitants of any - district under the temporary Government of the United - States, for the purpose of furnishing evidence to Congress - that such district contains the number which may entitle it - to admission into the Union, shall have been taken and - made, under a law to be made by the Legislature of the said - district, of the free inhabitants only, and, in all other - respects, pursuant to the provisions contained in the act, - entitled "An act providing for the enumeration of the - inhabitants of the United States:"" - -Which motion was read and ordered to lie until to-morrow for -consideration. - - -WEDNESDAY EVENING, 5 o'clock, June 1. - -_New State of Tennessee._ - -On motion, by Mr. MARTIN, that it be - - "_Resolved_, That the Honorable William Blount, and William - Cocke, Esquires, who have produced credentials of being - duly elected Senators for the State of Tennessee, be - admitted to take the oath necessary for their - qualification, and their seats accordingly;" - -_Ordered_, That a paper, purporting to be the credentials of Mr. BLOUNT -and Mr. COCKE, be read. - -And, on the question to agree to the resolution, it passed in the -negative--yeas 10, nays 11, as follows: - - YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Gunn, - Langdon, Martin, Robinson, Tattnall, and Tazewell. - - NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Foster, Latimer, - Livermore, Marshall, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, and - Trumbull. - -A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that -the House, having finished the business before them, are about to -adjourn to the first Monday in December next. - -Mr. BUTLER, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT -OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that, unless he had any further -communications to make to them, they were ready to adjourn, reported, -that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES had no further communication to -make, except the nomination of certain persons to execute the laws -passed the present session. - -After the consideration of the Executive business, the PRESIDENT -adjourned the Senate to the first Monday in December next. - - - - -FOURTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION. - -PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES - -IN - -THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. - - -MONDAY, December 7, 1795. - -The following members appeared, and took their seats: - -_From New Hampshire._--ABIEL FOSTER, NICHOLAS GILMAN, JOHN S. SHERBURNE, -and JEREMIAH SMITH. - -_From Massachusetts._--THEOPHILUS BRADBURY, HENRY DEARBORN, DWIGHT -FOSTER, NATHANIEL FREEMAN, Jr., BENJAMIN GOODHUE, GEORGE LEONARD, SAMUEL -LYMAN, WILLIAM LYMAN, JOHN READ, THEODORE SEDGWICK, GEORGE THATCHER, -JOSEPH B. VARNUM, and PELEG WADSWORTH. - -_From Rhode Island._--BENJAMIN BOURNE, and FRANCIS MALBONE. - -_From Connecticut._--JOSHUA COIT, CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, ROGER GRISWOLD, -ZEPHANIAH SWIFT, and URIAH TRACY. - -_From Vermont._--ISRAEL SMITH. - -_From New York._--THEODORUS BAILEY, WILLIAM COOPER, EZEKIEL GILBERT, -HENRY GLENN, JONATHAN N. HAVENS, EDWARD LIVINGSTON, JOHN E. VAN ALLEN, -PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, and JOHN WILLIAMS. - -_From New Jersey._--JONATHAN DAYTON, AARON KITCHELL, ISAAC SMITH, and -MARK THOMPSON. - -_From Pennsylvania._--DAVID BAIRD, ALBERT GALLATIN, DANIEL HEISTER, JOHN -WILKES KITTERA, SAMUEL MACLAY, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, SAMUEL -SITGREAVES, JOHN SWANWICK, and RICHARD THOMAS. - -_From Delaware._--JOHN PATTEN. - -_From Maryland._--GABRIEL CHRISTIE, GEORGE DENT, GABRIEL DUVALL, WILLIAM -HINDMAN, and WILLIAM VANS MURRAY. - -_From Virginia._--SAMUEL J. CABELL, JOHN CLOPTON, ISAAC COLES, WILLIAM -B. GILES, GEORGE HANCOCK, CARTER B. HARRISON, JOHN HEATH, GEORGE -JACKSON, JAMES MADISON, ANDREW MOORE, JOSIAH PARKER, ROBERT RUTHERFORD, -and ABRAHAM VENABLE. - -_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT, NATHAN BRYAN, DEMPSEY BURGES, -JESSE FRANKLIN, WILLIAM B. GROVE, JAMES HOLLAND, MATTHEW LOCKE, -NATHANIEL MACON, and ABSALOM TATOM. - -_From South Carolina._--SAMUEL EARLE, ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, and WILLIAM -SMITH. - -_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN. - -And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number being -present, - -The House proceeded by ballot, to the choice of a SPEAKER; and, upon -examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole House was -found in favor of JONATHAN DAYTON, one of the Representatives for the -State of New Jersey. Whereupon, - -The said JONATHAN DAYTON was conducted to the chair, from whence he made -his acknowledgments to the House, as follows: - - GENTLEMEN: It is with real diffidence that I undertake the - execution of the duties which you have done me the honor to - assign to me. - - In discharging them to the best of my abilities, I - anticipate, on your part, a liberal and indulgent temper - towards those decisions which may be required from the - Chair, and flatter myself that I shall experience, upon all - occasions, your co-operation and support. - -The House proceeded, in the same manner, to the appointment of a Clerk; -and, upon examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole -House was found in favor of JOHN BECKLEY. - -The oath to support the Constitution of the United States, as prescribed -by the act, entitled "An act to regulate the time and manner of -administering certain oaths," was then administered by ISAAC SMITH, one -of the Representatives from the State of New Jersey, to the SPEAKER, and -then by Mr. SPEAKER to all the members present. - -The same oath, together with the oath of office prescribed by the said -recited act, were also administered by Mr. SPEAKER to the Clerk. - -A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that a -quorum of members of that body is assembled, and the VICE PRESIDENT -being absent, they have proceeded to the choice of a PRESIDENT _pro -tempore_, and that HENRY TAZEWELL has been duly elected. - -_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform that body -that a quorum of this House is assembled, and have elected JONATHAN -DAYTON their SPEAKER; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the -message. - -Another message from the Senate was received, informing this House that -they have appointed a committee on their part, to act jointly with such -committee as may be appointed by this House, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF -THE UNITED STATES, to inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is -assembled, and ready to receive any communication he may think proper to -make to them. - -_Ordered_, That Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SITGREAVES, be -appointed a committee on the part of this House, for the purpose -expressed in the message of the Senate. - -Petitions from sundry persons, praying to be appointed to the offices of -Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper, were presented to the House and read: -Whereupon, - -The House proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a Sergeant-at-Arms, -Doorkeeper, and Assistant Doorkeeper; and, upon examining the ballots, a -majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of JOSEPH -WHEATON, as Sergeant-at-Arms, THOMAS CLAXTON, as Doorkeeper, and THOMAS -DUNN, as Assistant Doorkeeper. - -_Ordered_, That the said JOSEPH WHEATON, THOMAS CLAXTON, and THOMAS -DUNN, do severally give their attendance accordingly. - -Mr. MADISON, from the joint committee appointed 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 he may think proper to -make to them, reported that the committee had, according to order, -performed that service, and that the PRESIDENT signified to them that he -would make a communication to both Houses of Congress to-morrow, at 12 -o'clock, in the Representatives' Chamber. - - -TUESDAY, December 8. - -Several other members, to wit: from Maryland, SAMUEL SMITH; from -Virginia, RICHARD BRENT; and from Georgia, JOHN MILLEDGE, appeared, -produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House; the oath -to support the Constitution of the United States being first -administered to them by Mr. SPEAKER, according to law. - -_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this -House is now ready to attend them in receiving the communication from -the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to his notification to -both Houses yesterday; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the -said message. - -The Clerk accordingly went with the said message; and, being returned, - -The Senate attended and took seats in the House; when, both Houses being -assembled, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the -Representatives' Chamber, and delivered his Speech to the two Houses. -[For a copy of this Speech, see the Proceedings of the Senate.] - -The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES then withdrew, and the two Houses -separated. - -_Ordered_, That the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both -Houses be committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 9. - -JAMES HILLHOUSE, from Connecticut, appeared, produced his credentials, -was qualified, and took his seat. - -_Address to the President._ - -The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a -Committee of the Whole on the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES to both Houses of Congress, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair; when, -the Speech being read, - -Mr. VANS MURRAY moved the following resolution: - - "_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of the committee, that - a respectful Address ought to be presented by the House of - Representatives to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in - answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, at the - commencement of this session, containing assurances that - this House will take into consideration the various and - important matters recommended to their attention:" - -Mr. SEDGWICK seconded the motion. - -Mr. PARKER offered an amendment, which was seconded by Mr. MACON. - -The substance of this amendment was, to strike out all that part of the -resolution which goes before the word _assurances_; in place of which, -Mr. PARKER proposed to appoint a committee, who should personally wait -on the PRESIDENT, and assure him of the attention of the House, &c., and -concluding as above. Mr. P. had the highest respect for the PRESIDENT, -but he had always disapproved of this practice of making out Addresses -in answer to these Speeches, and of the House leaving their business to -go in a body to present them. Last session, the framing of this Address -had cost very long debates, and produced very great irritation. Some of -the most disagreeable things that happened during the session occurred -in these debates. He wished unanimity and the despatch of business, and -so, could not consent that any Address should be drawn up, as he -preferred ending the affair at once by sending a committee with a verbal -answer. - -Mr. MURRAY replied, that the practice of drawing up such an Address was -coeval with the constitution. It was consistent with good sense; and he -did not see that any argument had been employed by the gentleman who -spoke last against it. It was true that the House might send a verbal -answer, and it was likewise true that the PRESIDENT might have sent them -his Speech by his Secretary, without coming near them at all. He had -come to Congress, and Mr. M. could perceive no impropriety in Congress -returning the compliment by waiting on him. - -The committee divided on the amendment proposed by Mr. PARKER. Eighteen -members rose in support of it: so it was lost. The committee then agreed -to the resolution as offered by Mr. MURRAY. They rose, and the Chairman -reported progress. The resolution was agreed to by the House. The next -question was, of how many members the select committee should consist -that were to be employed in framing a draft of the Address. The -different numbers of five and three were proposed. A division took place -on the former motion, when only thirty-one gentlemen rose in its favor. -The motion for a committee of three members to report an Address was of -course carried. Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SITGREAVES, were -appointed.[61] - -It was then moved that two Chaplains should be named, as usual; which -was agreed to. - - -THURSDAY, December 10. - -FRANCIS PRESTON, from Virginia, appeared, was qualified, and took his -seat. - - -FRIDAY, December 11. - -Several other members, to wit: from Vermont, DANIEL BUCK; from New -Jersey, THOMAS HENDERSON; from Pennsylvania, WILLIAM FINDLAY; and from -Virginia, JOHN NICHOLAS, appeared, produced their credentials, were -qualified, and took their seats. - - -MONDAY, December 14. - -Two other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, THOMAS HARTLEY, and from -Virginia, ANTHONY NEW, appeared, produced their credentials, and took -their seats. - -_Address to the President._ - -Mr. MADISON, from the select committee appointed to draft an Address in -answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT, made a report, which was read by -the Clerk. - -Mr. GILES moved that the usual number of copies of the Address should be -printed for the use of the members. - - -TUESDAY, December 15. - -_Address to the President._ - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. -MUHLENBERG in the chair, on the draft of an answer to the PRESIDENT's -Speech. The following sentence being under consideration: - - "Contemplating that probably unequalled spectacle of - national happiness, which our country exhibits, to the - interesting summary which you, sir, have been pleased to - make, in justice to our own feelings, permit us to add the - benefits which are derived from your presiding in our - councils, resulting as well from the undiminished - confidence of your fellow-citizens, as from your zealous - and successful labors in their service." - -Mr. PARKER moved to strike out the words "probably unequalled," and from -the word "councils," to the end. He owned that the United States owe -much to the PRESIDENT for his services on most occasions; but he had -sometimes erred as other men. He could not for his own part subscribe to -the expressions contained in the words which he had moved to strike out; -his confidence in the PRESIDENT was diminished in consequence of a late -transaction. - -Mr. SHERBURNE called for a division of the question; that a question -should first be put upon the words "probably unequalled," and afterwards -upon striking out the latter part of the clause. - -The question was accordingly put upon the words "probably unequalled," -and they were struck out, 43 to 39. - -Mr. MURRAY rose to make a few observations on the motion for striking -out from the word "councils." As a Representative from Maryland, he -said, he could not on this occasion be contented to give a silent vote. -The Legislature of that State had not long since declared, that their -confidence in the PRESIDENT remains undiminished; and though his single -sentiment might be deemed unimportant when viewed in connection with the -unanimous vote of his State, yet he was free to declare, that his -confidence in the Chief Magistrate had experienced no diminution. The -Legislature of Maryland, he observed, had foreseen that attempts would -be made, and saw that unjustifiable attempts were actually making to -diminish the confidence of the people in the PRESIDENT; they therefore -resolved to give the sanction of their unanimous vote to his character, -declaring that the PRESIDENT retained their confidence, and that he had -merited it. Though not bound by the opinion of the Legislature of that -State, he conceived it his duty not to give a silent vote on the present -occasion. - -Mr. GILES had hoped that nothing would have been brought before the -House calculated to disturb the harmony that ought to subsist, by -involving the discussion of delicate points. He had as much zeal as any -man for the preservation of the PRESIDENT's fame and reputation; but he -could not go the length of the expressions in the clause objected to. He -could not agree to it in its present shape, because the assertion in it -does not correspond with the fact. After this remark, there could not, -he conceived, be any inconsistency in voting against the word and still -feeling a regard for the PRESIDENT. He hoped his fame and reputation -might never receive a stain, but pass unimpaired to posterity. He should -vote for striking out. - -Mr. FREEMAN wished the motion might be so modified as to involve the -striking out of the word "undiminished" only. Though he for himself, he -observed, might say that his confidence in the PRESIDENT was -undiminished, he could not utter the same sentiment in behalf of the -people at large. In his opinion the confidence of a part (a very small -one perhaps) of the people was diminished; though that of a majority -might be unshaken. - -Mr. HARPER said he had no difficulty in declaring, that his own -confidence in the PRESIDENT was undiminished, but he could not go so far -as to pledge himself that that of all the people was so. He never, he -said, had been in the habit of worshiping the PRESIDENT. He considered -him as a man, not infallible, but as a wise, honest, and faithful public -servant, and he was prepared in all places and situations to declare -this opinion; but he was not ready to pronounce concerning the opinion -of the people of the United States. Some time hence they may become -unanimous in their confidence; but he could not say that it was not -diminished. He was ready to declare for himself but not for others. If -called upon to declare whether a majority, whether four-fifths of the -people retained their confidence in the PRESIDENT, he could declare it -as his opinion in the affirmative; but the clause as it stands includes -the whole, and he declared as it stood could not command his vote. He -concluded by expressing his intention, when it would be in order, to -introduce a modification of the clause, so as to express the -undiminished confidence of the House in the PRESIDENT. - -Mr. PARKER, in coincidence with the wish of Mr. FREEMAN, agreed to -confine his motion to striking out the word "undiminished." - -Mr. SEDGWICK doubted whether, after a division of the question, and a -question being taken on the first part, a modification of the second -part would be in order. - -The Chairman declared it in order. - -Mr. SEDGWICK viewed the present motion as even more objectionable than -the first; it went directly to a denial of undiminished confidence for -the PRESIDENT on the part of the House and the public. There was a time, -he said, when no man could have supposed that the period would have -arrived, that in the popular branch of the GOVERNMENT, the confidence of -the people and their Representatives in that man could have been -questioned. - -Having been on the committee that framed the answer, and maturely -considered the subject in every part, he would mention some of the -observations that occurred to his mind particularly in favor of the part -now objected to. Lest in the course of them his sensibility on this -subject should betray him into some warmth of expression, he begged -leave to premise that he wished to wound the feelings of no man. - -It was proper, he said, to inquire into facts on which the expression -now objected to was grounded. Is the confidence of the people in the -services, and patriotism, and wisdom of the Chief Magistrate diminished? -His experience led him to say no; then, in the existing circumstances, -is it not right for the Representatives to make the declaration to their -constituents and the world? To suppose the people, who, at the present -moment, enjoyed so many blessings under the PRESIDENT's administration, -could feel their confidence in him impaired, would suppose a baseness of -disposition unworthy of them and of the services he has rendered. Who -could review the glorious conduct of our Chief during the conflict of -the Revolution, his unwearied labors for the public good, his bravery, -moderation, and humanity; who could observe him in his happy retirement, -covered with glory, and accompanied by the blessings of his country; -then forsaking his retirement, putting at hazard the mighty mass of his -reputation, and be insensible of his services? Who could review the -critical situation in which he preserved our peace and prosperity during -a glorious administration of six years; who could review these things -and not have his heart filled with gratitude and esteem? He expressed -his belief, that, a late measure of the Executive was less the object of -the dislike of some, than affording the opportunity for the vent of -passions and feelings deep-rooted before. - -As to the sense of the people of the PRESIDENT, he believed it -unaltered, as to his immediate constituents, he was sure it was; and if -so, it was the duty of the House to make the declaration to the world--a -duty the House owed to themselves and their constituents, and the more -binding from the nature of the Government the people had chosen. - -Though the PRESIDENT had twice been called to the PRESIDENCY by the -unanimous and unsolicited voice of his fellow-citizens; though in -obedience to that voice he had made a sacrifice no other man would have -made; though the only reward he has received for his services has been -the approbation of his country, yet, nevertheless, licentious presses -had lately teemed with infamous and scandalous abuse of him. Is this, he -asked, consonant to the feelings of the House, and shall they not -attempt to counteract its effects in the only constitutional manner? -Shall they not declare their own and their constituents' confidence -undiminished in that officer of the Government? - -He has told the Legislature that he wishes to co-operate, to preserve -unimpaired the blessings we enjoy. Does the House believe this? then is -it wrong to express their confidence? - -He believed, he said, that the efforts made to destroy the character of -this first of men, instead of producing the mischief intended, would -effect the contrary; and he also expressed his belief that the tide of -his popularity at the present moment flowed with unusual strength. - -It has been intimated, he observed, that sanctioning the vote of -confidence, contemplated in the clause of the Address under -consideration, would implicate an approbation of a late measure of the -Executive, and would preclude the possibility of a free opinion when -that measure might come under the consideration of the House. He -declared, upon his honor, that he had no intention that the vote now -contemplated should have that effect. He did not conceive, that the vote -of undiminished confidence, which he now pressed, involved an -approbation of all the measures of the Executive; it did not exclude the -idea of fallibility; for what man is infallible? It is only implied, -according to his conception, an approbation of the general tenor of the -conduct of the Executive. When the House express their confidence in a -public officer, they cannot mean that they believe him infallible, but -only that his character, grounded on his general conduct, receives their -approbation. - -If, when the Chief Magistrate is attacked in the manner the PRESIDENT -has been attacked, he is left to be overwhelmed with unmerited abuse; -what man with talents to be useful, a reputation to be injured, or -feelings to be wounded--what man will hazard all to serve an ungrateful -country? It will render the station of Chief Magistrate sought only by -mercenaries. If confidence is denied to the Executive, it will only -create vacancies in the high offices of Government to be filled by those -harpies who prey upon the vitals of the State. - -Another consideration, he said, should have an influence on this -occasion. The fame of the Chief Magistrate's character has filled the -whole world; the Americans are particularly distinguished as a people -for their uniform attachment towards him. If, at this time of day, they -indirectly declare their want of confidence in that man, they will -justify the malignant predictions which have been uttered against our -system of Government. - -These considerations, he said, had weighed on his mind. If the motion -for striking out prevailed, he declared it would distress him beyond any -circumstance that had occurred to him during his public life, especially -at this period, and under the present circumstances of affairs. He -should consider the prevalence of this motion as tantamount to a -declaration, that the House and their constituents did not feel their -confidence in the PRESIDENT unimpaired. - -Mr. LIVINGSTON lamented the situation which the drafted Address reduced -the House to; but he could not give his assent to it as it stood; he -should vote for striking out the word "undiminished," if a question on -it should be urged. He did not conceive himself called to a seat in the -House to express opinions, much less the opinions of others, but to make -laws. He felt so much the delicacy of the situation which the wording of -the Address had placed the House in, that he wished the dilemma of a -vote might be avoided. The gentleman last up also lamented the -situation, and justly observed, that striking out the word was -tantamount to a declaration that the confidence reposed in the -PRESIDENT was diminished. But he begged to remind him that it was the -framers of the Address, and he was one of them, that involved the House -in this disagreeable situation. - -He declared himself so young in the parliamentary proceedings, as not -exactly to know how to avoid a question on the present motion. He -declared he was not prepared to say what the opinion of his constituents -concerning the PRESIDENT was. The confidence of many of them he knew was -shaken; that of others was increased. - -He moved, if in order, that the committee should rise, and the Address -be recommitted. - -This was carried, and Messrs. FREEMAN and BALDWIN added to the -committee. - -Adjourned. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 16. - -THOMAS CLAIBORNE, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, was -qualified, and took his seat. - -_Address to the President._ - -Mr. MADISON, from the committee to whom had been recommitted the draft -of the Address in answer to the PRESIDENT's Speech, brought in a report. -The clause now added consisted of a modification of the clause objected -to yesterday. On motion, the House went into a Committee of the Whole, -Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair. The amendment was unanimously agreed to. -Mr. GILES then moved an amendment in the third line of the last -paragraph. It was thus: for "the several interesting subjects which you -recommended to our consideration will receive every degree of _it_," -read of _attention_. The committee then rose, and the House agreed to -the report. - -It was then moved and agreed to, that the SPEAKER, attended by the -House, do present the address, as amended, to the PRESIDENT, and that a -committee should be appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT, to know where -and when he will be ready to receive the Address of the House. - -The same gentlemen, viz: Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SITGREAVES, -who had been first appointed to draft the Address, were named for -waiting on the PRESIDENT. - -The committee that had been appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT, returned -with notice that he would be ready to receive their Address, at his own -house to-morrow at 12 o'clock. - -The House then adjourned. - - -THURSDAY, December 17. - -WADE HAMPTON, from South Carolina, and JOHN HATHORN, from New York, -appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their -seats. - -_Address to the President._ - -At twelve o'clock, the SPEAKER, attended by the House, waited upon the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and delivered to him the following -Address, in answer to his Speech to both Houses at the opening of the -session: - - SIR: As the Representatives of the people of the United - States, we cannot but participate in the strongest - sensibility to every blessing which they enjoy, and - cheerfully join with you in profound gratitude to the - Author of all Good for the numerous and extraordinary - blessings which He has conferred on our favored country. - - A final and formal termination of the distressing war which - has ravaged our North-western frontier, will be an event - which must afford satisfaction proportioned to the anxiety - with which it has long been sought; and in the adjustment - of the terms, we perceive the true policy of making them - satisfactory to the Indians as well as to the United - States, as the best basis of a durable tranquillity. The - disposition of such of the Southern tribes as had also - heretofore annoyed our frontier, is another prospect in our - situation so important to the interest and happiness of the - United States, that it is much to be lamented that any - clouds should be thrown over it, more especially by - excesses on the part of our own citizens. - - While our population is advancing with a celerity which - exceeds the most sanguine calculations--while every part of - the United States displays indications of rapid and various - improvement--while we are in the enjoyment of protection - and security, by mild and wholesome laws, administered by - Governments founded on the genuine principles of rational - liberty, a secure foundation will be laid for accelerating, - maturing, and establishing the prosperity of our country, - if by treaty and amicable negotiation, all those causes of - external discord which heretofore menaced our tranquillity - shall be extinguished, on terms compatible with our - national rights and honor, with our constitution and great - commercial interests. - - Among the various circumstances in our internal situation, - none can be viewed with more satisfaction and exultation, - than that the late scene of disorder and insurrection has - been completely restored to the enjoyment of order and - repose. Such a triumph of reason and of law is worthy of - the free Government under which it happened, and was justly - to be hoped from the enlightened and patriotic spirit which - pervades and actuates the people of the United States. - - In contemplating that spectacle of national happiness which - our country exhibits, and of which you, sir, have been - pleased to make an interesting summary, permit us to - acknowledge and declare the very great share which your - zealous and faithful services have contributed to it, and - to express the affectionate attachment which we feel for - your character. - - The several interesting subjects which you recommend to our - consideration, will receive every degree of attention which - is due to them. And whilst we feel the obligation of - temperance and mutual indulgence in all our discussions, we - trust and pray that the result to the happiness and welfare - of our country may correspond with the pure affection we - bear to it. - -To the foregoing Address, the PRESIDENT was pleased to make the -following reply: - - GENTLEMEN: Coming as you do from all parts of the United - States, I receive great satisfaction from the concurrence - of your testimony in the justness of the interesting - summary of our national happiness, which, as the result of - my inquiries, I presented to your view. The sentiments we - have mutually expressed of profound gratitude to the source - of these numerous blessings--the Author of all Good--are - pledges of our obligations to unite our sincere and zealous - endeavors, as the instruments of Divine Providence, to - preserve and perpetuate them. - - Accept, gentlemen, my thanks for your declaration, that to - my agency you ascribe the enjoyment of a great share of - these benefits. So far as my services contribute to the - happiness of my country, the acknowledgment of my - fellow-citizens, and their affectionate attachment, will - ever prove an abundant reward. G. WASHINGTON. - - -TUESDAY, December 22. - -NATHANIEL SMITH, from Connecticut, appeared, was qualified, and took his -seat in the House. - - -THURSDAY, December 24. - -CHRISTOPHER GREENUP, from Kentucky, appeared, was qualified, and took -his seat. - - -MONDAY, December 28. - -ANDREW GREGG, from Pennsylvania, appeared, produced his credentials, was -qualified, and took his seat. - -_Robert Randall--Case of Bribery._ - -Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, requested the attention of the House, for -a moment, to a subject of a very delicate nature. He understood that a -memorial was, this morning, to be presented from some individuals, -applying for a grant of a large tract of Western territory, and as the -House had referred all such applications to the committee for bringing -in the Land Office Bill, of which he was Chairman; and, as it was -probable that the memorial, about to be presented, would be disposed of -in the same manner, he conceived it a duty incumbent upon him to -disclose to the House, at this time, some circumstances which had come -to his knowledge. Mr. SMITH then said that, on Tuesday evening last, a -person of the name of Randall called on him, requesting an hour of -confidential conversation. In the interview which took place, Randall -made a communication to the following effect: He intended to present a -memorial, on the Monday following, to Congress, for a grant of all the -Western lands lying between Lakes Michigan, Erie, and Huron, to the -amount of about twenty millions of acres. He, and his associates, some -of whom were Canada merchants, who had great influence over the Indians, -proposed to form a company, and to undertake the extinction of the -Indian title, provided Congress would cede to them the fee-simple of the -land. The property would be divided into forty shares, twenty-four of -which should be reserved for such members of Congress as might favor the -scheme, and might be inclined to come into it, after the adjournment of -Congress, on the same terms as the original associates. Randall himself -had the disposal of twelve shares, for members from the Southern -States, and a colleague of his, a like number for those of the Eastern -States. A certain number of shares were to be the property of those -Canada merchants, who had an unbounded influence over the Indians -occupying those lands, and who would, if this plan succeeded, pacify -those Indians, who were the most hostile to the United States; that Gen. -Wayne's treaty was a mere delusion, and that, without the co-operation -of those influential persons, the United States would never have peace -in that quarter. Mr. SMITH said that he communicated this overture, the -next morning, to Mr. MURRAY, one of the members from Maryland, -requesting his advice how to proceed on so delicate an occasion; that -Mr. MURRAY recommended a disclosure to Mr. HENRY, of the Senate, and -that, on a consultation with those gentlemen, it was resolved that it -was Mr. SMITH's duty to make an immediate communication of the matter to -the PRESIDENT, which was accordingly done. - -Mr. MURRAY rose next. He had received an application of the same nature, -but having already heard of the proposal, "I was," said he, "in a state -of preparation, and my virtue had not such a shock to encounter, as that -of the gentleman last up." Mr. M. corroborated what Mr. SMITH had said -as to the communication of this affair to himself. He added, that he had -advised Mr. SMITH to give Randall another meeting, for the purpose of -developing his schemes and expectations more fully. Mr. M. said that Mr. -SMITH informed him on Wednesday morning; next day, in the morning, he -informed Mr. HENRY, of the Senate. Mr. SMITH, on that day, informed the -PRESIDENT. On that day (Thursday,) Mr. RANDALL was introduced to him, -and asked an interview at his lodging; he gave him an appointment, at -five in the afternoon. Mr. HENRY and he were together when Randall came -in. Randall talked about the policy of extinguishing the Indian title to -the Peninsula formed by Lakes Erie, Huron, and Michigan, containing -about eighteen or twenty millions of acres of very good land; and talked -in terms that he might have employed from a pulpit. He did not make any -corrupt overtures, till Mr. M. had carried him into his own apartment. -There Randall opened his proposals, as had been before mentioned by Mr. -SMITH, observing that if Congress would sell this land to him and his -company, they intended to divide it into forty or forty-one shares. -Twenty-four shares were to be appropriated to such members of Congress -as chose to support the memorial, which would be presented on Monday. -The members were to have their shares upon the same terms on which his -company should obtain the land. The Company would give five hundred -thousand, or perhaps a million of dollars: but on Mr. M.'s apparent -acquiescence in his views, he said that the shares would be given to the -members who advocated the measure, if they pleased to accept them, after -they returned to their homes. Mr. M. started a difficulty about the -embarrassment of land speculations, for which he, personally, had no -genius; and then Randall instantly turned out the cat, and told him that -if _he_ did not choose the share of land, he should have cash in hand -for his share. Mr. SMITH and Mr. MURRAY had resolved to disclose this to -the House, lest some innocent member might offer a memorial and become -liable to suspicion. Randall had hinted that larger proportions would be -assigned to the more active members, and lesser ones for the small fish. - -The SPEAKER then rose, and expressed a wish that some gentleman would -move for an order to apprehend Randall. Upon this, Mr. SMITH again rose, -and said that a warrant to this effect had yesterday been issued by the -PRESIDENT, and to support which Mr. S. had made oath before a magistrate -to the particulars above mentioned. He hoped that by this time the -person was taken. - -Mr. GILES next rose, and observed that an application from the same Mr. -Randall had been made to himself. Besides a repetition of some -particulars already stated, he told Mr. G. that he had already secured -thirty or forty members of this House, but he wanted to secure three -other members, if Mr. G. recollected right. He added, that he had -already secured a majority of the Senate. When this proposal was first -made, which Mr. G. thought was about ten days ago, a member from -New-York (Mr. LIVINGSTON) was present. Randall had even gone so far as -to say, that a written agreement was drawn out, and subscribed by a -number of Eastern members, and he wished Mr. G. to extend another -obligation of the same kind for the Southern members; the purport of -which paper was understood to be, that the members who voted in support -of the disposal of the lands, were to be secured in a stipulated share -of them, without having their names mentioned in the deed. Mr. G. was -solicitous to learn the names of the members who had already entered -into the negotiation, but Randall assured him, that, from motives of -delicacy, he durst not communicate any of the names. Mr. G. then desired -a sight of the agreement, that he might be able to comprehend its -meaning, before he should attempt to draw any similar paper. The man -called a second time, and, as Mr. G. conceived, about four days ago, but -had never produced the deed or any draft of it. Mr. G. had already -communicated the proposal to several members, and, in particular, to the -SPEAKER. - -The SPEAKER (Mr. DAYTON) mentioned, that Mr. GILES had, some time ago, -informed him of the proposal. He replied, that if an opportunity -offered, he would take care to select a committee consisting of members -sure to detect the guilty, if any such could exist; adding that he -expected the House to believe that he would not have used such words, -but on so extraordinary an occasion. - -Mr. CHRISTIE said, that he was the person who had introduced Randall to -Mr. SMITH and Mr. MURRAY. He had long known him, as a respectable man. -Randall had mentioned to Mr. C. in general, that it was a landed -speculation, and hinted that he, Mr. C., might accept of a share. In -reply, Mr. C. had assured him that he could not possibly have a concern -in any such transaction. Randall had not, to Mr. C., insinuated that any -undue advantage would accrue to members supporting the intended -purchase. - -Mr. BUCK, a member from Vermont, mentioned that a person of the name of -Whitney, who appears to have been an associate with Randall, had called -upon him in the country with a proposal of this kind. - -Mr. MADISON said, that the person referred to had also called upon him, -and told him of his having waited upon many members, and, among the -rest, upon the SPEAKER. Mr. MADISON said, that the conversation was -rather short, owing, perhaps, to the coldness with which the advances of -Mr. Randall were received. Mr. MADISON had already learned, through his -friend from Virginia (Mr. GILES,) the state in which the business was. -He did not wish to alarm the person by too much abruptness, and, at the -same time, he did not wish to give himself any unnecessary trouble about -it, as he understood that it would be properly managed without his -interference. - - -TUESDAY, December 29. - -_Case of Randall and Whitney._ - -A return was made by Mr. JOSEPH WHEATON, Sergeant-at-Arms to the House -of Representatives. Mr. WHEATON stated that, agreeably to the order from -the SPEAKER, he had taken into custody the bodies of Robert Randall and -Charles Whitney, and kept them at the disposal of the House. - -Mr. W. SMITH moved, that a Committee of Privileges, consisting of seven -members, should be appointed, and instructed to consider and report with -respect to the proper mode of proceeding in this case as to Robert -Randall, and that the said committee shall have leave to sit -immediately. - -It was likewise moved that the name of Charles Whitney should be -comprehended in the resolution, because he also was taken into custody. -The resolution, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. BALDWIN, Mr. W. SMITH, -Mr. MURRAY, Mr. COIT, Mr. GILES, Mr. LIVINGSTON, and Mr. GOODHUE, were -named for a committee. - -Randall was now brought in, by Mr. WHEATON, Sergeant-at-Arms, and the -City Marshal. That part of the journals which refers to his conduct was -read to him. - -The SPEAKER then interrogated the prisoner, whether these charges were -true or false? Randall replied that he was not prepared to answer. He -hoped that time would be given him. The SPEAKER asked what time he -wanted? He could not positively tell; perhaps till the day after -to-morrow. - -Mr. W. SMITH was disposed to give him the time required. - -Mr. BLOUNT said, that he felt for his own dignity as a member of the -House, and for the dignity of the House. To suffer the prisoner to go -away from the bar till he had said guilty, or not guilty, when thirty or -forty members are positively charged with such conduct, and we suffer -the culprit to withdraw, without obliging him to explain, will excite -public suspicion that guilt is here. - -Randall was then ordered to withdraw, till the discussion should be -over. - -Mr. RUTHERFORD was for making him say yes or no, directly, as to the -guilt. If he wants to have time for pleading any thing in mitigation of -his punishment, that is a quite different affair. But the honor of the -House was concerned in making him give an immediate answer to the -queries now put. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE was for bringing Randall forward directly. He ought not to -be allowed time to think of an answer. - -Mr. HARPER felt as much as any man for the dignity of the House, but -this would not induce him to proceed in a hurry. Mr. H. enlarged on the -danger of indulging passion on this subject. It would be wrong to force -the prisoner to answer unprepared. What if he refuses to answer at all? -Confession amounts, in this case, to conviction. He was for granting -indulgence. - -Mr. VENABLE felt as much as any man for the dignity of the House. At the -same time, he felt himself above suspicion, and the House above it. He -would not wish to trample on the rights of an individual. He saw no -danger that could arise to the House from a short delay. He referred to -what Mr. HARPER had said about the hardship of making any man convict -himself. - -Mr. CLAIBORNE was also against hurrying the prisoner. He recommended -that coolness and moderation should distinguish the proceedings of the -House. - -The question was then put, whether the prisoner should be obliged to -answer immediately. Ayes 42, noes 48. - -It was then moved, by Mr. W. SMITH, that he should be allowed till -twelve o'clock, to-morrow. - -Mr. BLOUNT proposed the yeas and nays on the latter question. A member -observed that they should rather have been put on the one immediately -preceding. The motion was supported only by four or five members. A -fifth part of the House are requisite for calling the yeas and nays. - -Mr. BLOUNT then laid on the table a long resolution. It was, in -substance, that before Randall was recommitted, he should be -interrogated as to who were the thirty or forty members that had been -gained to the scheme. - -Mr. HARPER thought it extraordinary to bring a culprit before the House -for contempt of it, and then encourage him to criminate members. He -should ever protest against persons being brought to the bar for that -purpose. He therefore moved to strike out from the resolution proposed -by Mr. BLOUNT, the words: "And if you did, who are the members whom you -considered as so secured; and what were your reasons for thinking them -so secured?" This was the last clause of an interrogatory which Mr. -BLOUNT proposed putting to Randall. - -Mr. BLOUNT declared that he had never meant bringing an accuser to the -bar, or propounding a question that should bring forth an accusation. - -Mr. HARPER replied. - -Mr. BLOUNT then modified his resolution, by striking out the -exceptionable words; to which Mr. HARPER then agreed. - -Mr. MURRAY called upon gentlemen by their sensibility to personal -dignity, and the character of the House, to arrest the motion. Its -tendency certainly was to place the honor of the House, or of a very -great part of it, in the power of a man of whose profligacy of principle -there could now be no doubt. Will you, he observed, permit, nay, invite -him, whom you arraign at the bar of this House, to be a public accuser? -Will you adopt a charge against him, which is in its nature an -imputation that however lightly and wickedly made, will implicate -perhaps innocent men? These men, to rescue their own reputations, will -be obliged to risk their characters, on the weight of their veracity, by -denying this man's charge in the face of a world but too prone to -suspect. By this motion, Randall's assertion to the gentleman from -Virginia, (Mr. GILES,) the only member who has mentioned it, is to be -alleged against Randall as an offence. That Randall said to the -gentleman that there were thirty or forty members secured, he had no -doubt; but he believed the fact to be that Randall was both deceived -himself and attempted to deceive the gentleman. Why, said Mr. M., the -fellow told me that those thirty members were secured. Mr. M. had not -thought proper to state that circumstance, because he did not so much -consider it as a fact material to the detection of Randall's guilt, as -it was one which, if mentioned, might possibly afford to malice an -opportunity of affixing a stigma to any thirty or forty names at which -personal enmity might point. No public good could result from such a -disclosure; for the assertion of such a man as Randall could not, among -men of honor, be deemed a sufficient ground of suspicion; and yet the -malice of the world, or the rancor of personal enemies, might attach -suspicion and infamy to almost the whole House, from the indefiniteness -of the charge. When Randall informed him, on Thursday night, that there -were thirty members who would support his measures, he had felt in the -very conduct which he then was himself pursuing to detect Randall, to -arrest his scheme, a principle of candor towards others, which taught -him that other gentlemen to whom Randall had communicated his scheme -confidentially, were probably determined as honestly as himself to crush -the infamous plot against the honor of the House. He knew that he who -would be wicked enough to attempt seduction, might be weak enough to use -this intelligence artfully, for the purpose of leading him the more -readily to accept terms of infamy; because the object was painted as -easily attainable, and that Randall might wish to diminish all qualms, -by exhibiting a pretended group of accomplices whose company would at -least diminish the appearance of singularity. I entertained, said Mr. -M., no suspicion of any man--I knew Randall to be a corrupt man from his -offers to myself--I therefore placed all his intelligence to the score -of flimsy art: I knew that such a man was not to be fully believed, -where his interest was to magnify his success. I drew favorable auspices -with respect to the corps to which I belong, from another piece of -intelligence of his, which was, that he communicated to some members, -one of whom he had named, and whom I knew to be a man of honor, in what -he called the _general way_. This general way was a display of the -sounder part of his scheme merely, and not the corrupt; consisting in -developing the advantages which would result to the Union in the -disposal of their lands, provided the harmony of the Indians could be -secured. In this view of his plan he gave the subject an attitude far -from unimposing; and I conceived that, as in proportion to the numbers -engaged confidentially he must know that the hazard of detection -increased, he would not communicate the corrupt view as long as he found -the more honest part of the policy might appear to strike any gentleman -as a measure useful to his country; I therefore did not believe Randall, -in the sense he evidently intended; therefore, sir, I did not feel -myself at liberty to mention the assertion which I conceived to be -unavailing as a circumstance necessary to the example I wished to make, -but which, if communicated, I thought might cast a stain, by the mystery -that enveloped it, upon a body whose character ought to be held sacred -to the confidence of the country. My duty was to bring Randall's attempt -to corrupt unequivocally into light, not by repeating all the arts which -he excited to corrupt; nor by exhibiting them in a way that might wound -the feelings of men of honor, who, if charged even personally by -Randall, would have no refuge from odium but in their characters and -counter-assertion: this, though always conclusive with those who -personally know them, is not a protection to minds of sensibility -against the stings of calumny. The voice of fame is not composed from -the voice of men of honor. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE was convinced that there was not a gentleman in the House, -whose character rested on so slender a foundation, as to be affected by -any thing that this man could say. He felt no anxiety for the reputation -of the House, for he knew that it was not in the smallest danger. The -resolution went merely to make Randall confess that he had said so and -so. It implied nothing to affect members. A man covered with infamy -making such charges could not expect credit, or obtain it from any body. -Mr. HILLHOUSE was, for these reasons, in favor of the resolution for -interrogating Randall. - -The resolution was now read, as follows: - - "_Resolved_, That it be made a charge against the said - Robert Randall, that he declared to a member of this House, - that a number consisting of not less than thirty members of - this House had engaged to support his memorial." - -Randall was then brought to the bar. The resolution was read to him, and -he was informed that he must answer it to-morrow, at 12 o'clock. - -A motion for adjourning was then made. Ayes, 26; so it was lost. - -It was next moved and agreed, that Whitney should be brought to the bar. -The SPEAKER then said, Is this the prisoner? Answered, Yes. What is your -name? Charles Whitney. What is your usual place of residence? Vermont. -What are you? I was bred to the farming business. Do you know one Robert -Randall? Yes. The Clerk will read to you the charge that has occasioned -your being brought here. The charge, as stated in the journal of the -House, was then read to the prisoner. He was next interrogated by the -SPEAKER, as follows: Are you guilty, or not guilty? Not guilty. Are you -ready to speak in your defence? I am ready to tell every thing. Are you -prepared to do so just now? Yes. Whitney then stated that he was -connected with Randall in a plan for the purchase of eighteen or twenty -millions of acres of land, lying between the Lakes Erie, Huron, and -Michigan. He had come to town on the design of presenting a petition to -Congress, but had no knowledge of any improper kind of applications. -Randall had several times called upon him at his lodgings, at the Green -Tree, in North Fourth street. He considered the scheme to be of probable -advantage, and a handsome thing to the United States as well as to the -prisoner himself, who repeatedly observed that he would not have engaged -in it, but with a view partly to his own interest. He had wished to -engage influential characters in the business. He was then asked what -associates he had. He answered, Colonel Pepune and Mr. Jones, of the -State of Massachusetts; and Mr. Ebenezer Allen, of Vermont. He also, -upon a query from the SPEAKER, mentioned the name of another person, -which was not distinctly heard. He was asked if the partners meant to -divide the land into forty shares. He answered forty-one; but this was -only in speculation. They had only a rough idea of the extent of the -land, which was inhabited by the Wyandots, and was of a very good soil. -The land was to be divided among the proprietors. The prisoner knew, in -general, from Randall, that he called on Mr. SMITH, and other members; -but was not privy to, nor suspected any unbecoming overtures. He was -then asked the names of the associates at Detroit. He mentioned Mr. -Erskine, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Innes, Mr. Pattison, and Mr. Erskine, -junior. He said that some of them were Indian traders, to a -considerable extent. He had called at Mr. BUCK's, of Vermont, (a member -of the House,) as he was riding by his house. He knew him to be a -gentleman of character whose name would add credit to the business. He -had told him that there were several other persons intending to be -concerned, and that, if it was consistent with his situation as a member -of Congress, he would be glad to have him engaged, but at the same time -carefully noticed that this proposal was conditionally made, and only if -it was proper. He was asked what Mr. Erskine was. He is called Judge -Erskine, but whether he is now a judge, or only was one in some other -part of the country, at a former period, the prisoner cannot tell. You -say that you came to Philadelphia about a month ago. Why were you so -long in presenting your petition? He had a bad cold, and had been sick, -and wanted to make a personal explanation to the members before bringing -the affair before the House. Have you got any new associates in this -city? None. Mr. LIVINGSTON then proposed a question, Whether any of the -shares had been left unappropriated by your associates and you? Answer: -It was at his own option to dispose of shares as he pleased. He was -asked if he could produce any written agreement between himself and his -associates. He believed that he could, and that it would do him no harm -to do so. It was at the Green Tree. But, as a matter of candor, he -requested time to consider whether the production of it could hurt him -or not. This ended the examination. - -Mr. W. SMITH then made a motion, consisting of three points, that -Whitney should be ordered to re-appear at the bar, at twelve o'clock, -to-morrow; that he should be ordered to produce the bond; and that, till -to-morrow, he should be remanded to the custody of the City Marshal. It -was likewise recommended that, till to-morrow, the two prisoners be kept -in separate apartments. - -Mr. GOODHUE requested that Whitney might be ordered to withdraw; which -was done. He then related that the prisoner had made an application to -him at different times. Mr. GOODHUE told him that he knew very little of -the Western country; he had always lived on the sea-coast, and land -jobbing was quite out of his line. Whitney did not make any corrupt -proposals to him. He believed that it was because he was very averse to -wasting time in speaking at all on the matter. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said that, as no direct charge of corruption had been made -against Whitney, he apprehended it would be improper to detain him as a -prisoner. It might be considered as a wanton act of arbitrary power. - -Mr. BUCK then rose, and said that he had not yesterday told the whole of -what passed between him and Whitney. Mr. BUCK had received offers plain -enough to be understood. He might either have land, or money in lieu of -it. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, that he had now no opposition to the resolutions; -which were carried. - - -WEDNESDAY, December 30. - -JOHN PAGE, from Virginia, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat. - -_Case of Randall and Whitney._ - -Mr. W. SMITH moved an amendment of the journal to this effect, that the -said Charles Whitney had made overtures to Mr. BUCK, to this purpose, -that he should have a share in the lands to be purchased, or in money. - -Mr. NICHOLAS objected to the motion. The reading of the journal was -called for. It was read. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, that the original charge against the man was complete -and full. He thought the amendment unnecessary. - -A petition was then presented from Randall requesting that he might be -indulged with a reasonable time to make his defence, and with counsel. - -Mr. W. SMITH was very ready to allow the prisoner counsel for his -defence, but, in so doing, he wished it to be understood, not as a -matter of right but of favor. He was apprehensive that gentlemen in -proceeding from one step to another, would at last reason away the -privileges of the House altogether. His friend from Massachusetts (Mr. -SEDGWICK) had quoted the clause of the constitution which gave a right -to have counsel in all trials for crimes; but it did not apply to this -case, any more than the clause which immediately followed it, declaring -that all trials for crimes should be by a jury of the vicinage, and -after presentment by a grand jury. The present inquiry was of a special -and peculiar nature, resulting from the rights and privileges which -belonged to every Legislative institution, and without which such -institution could not exist. As every jurisdiction had certain powers -necessary for its preservation, so the Legislature possessed certain -privileges incident to its nature, and essential for its very existence. -This is called in England the parliamentary law; and as from that law -are derived the usages and proceedings of the several State -Legislatures, so will the proceedings of this House be generally guided -by the long-established usages of the State Legislatures. There would be -a manifest absurdity in conforming the proceedings in this case to the -ordinary proceedings at law in jury trials, for the House, instead of -being able to protect itself, would be altogether dependent on the other -branches of the Government, and in every case of aggression be obliged -to send the offenders to the civil magistrate. If there was any weight -in such reasoning as had been heard, then the House would have to tread -back all the unconstitutional steps they had been taking, and to -discharge, without delay, both the prisoners; for the arrest by the -Sergeant-at-Arms, under the SPEAKER's warrant, was only justifiable on -the ground he had mentioned, namely, the inherent and indispensable -power of self-preservation. That the House possessed power to arrest had -not been denied; but the power of commitment was incident to that of -arrest, and if it possessed both these high powers, it must of -consequence possess the necessary incident of trial or inquiry, in -regulating which the House was only to be governed by its own wisdom and -discretion. On this occasion Mr. S. said he felt, as he trusted every -member did, a proper respect for the rights of individuals brought to -the bar, as well as for those of the House, and he hoped that their -conduct would be marked with discretion and temper; but, willing as he -was to grant the prayer of the petitioner, he could not suffer the -argument which had been relied on, to pass unanswered. This was the -first instance, since the organization of this Government, in which it -had been found necessary to resort to this high prerogative; it was -right, therefore, that the principles on which it was founded should be -well understood, and that the privileges of the House should stand -unimpaired. - -Mr. SEDGWICK moved that the prayer of the petition should be granted, -and that Randall be allowed till to-morrow, to be heard at the bar. - -The petition was again read. - -Mr. CHRISTIE had known Randall for many years, and had never heard of -any thing against him before. He had lately been at Detroit, and Mr. C. -believed that he had been injured by keeping bad company. He was not the -first man in the country who had been corrupted by British influence and -British company. He moved that Randall should be allowed till to-morrow -at twelve o'clock. This was negatived. - -The SPEAKER then said, that, if agreeable to the House, he would send -for Randall, and inquire what time he wanted. This was done; Randall -came in, and asked till Saturday, but as the House does not sit on -Saturday, Friday was appointed. - -The bond or agreement between the intended purchasers of the land was -then read. It was dated at Detroit, the 26th of September last. Allen, -Whitney, and Randall, were to have the disposal of 36 shares out of 41. - - -THURSDAY, December 31. - -RICHARD WINN, from South Carolina, appeared, was qualified, and took his -seat. - -_Case of Randall and Whitney._ - -Mr. BALDWIN, the chairman of the Committee of Privileges, reported, in -part, on the subject of the further proceedings to be had in the case of -R. Randall and C. Whitney, in substance as follows: - -1. That a further hearing of R. Randall should be held at the bar; that -the information given by members against the said Randall be reduced to -writing, signed by the informants respectively, and entered at large on -the journals; that the said information should be read to the prisoner, -and he be asked by the SPEAKER what he had to say in his defence. If the -prisoner should desire to produce any parole evidence to exculpate -himself, the same shall be heard at the bar, and the Judge of the -District of Pennsylvania be requested to attend to administer an oath or -affirmation to the witnesses on the part of the prisoner; that the -SPEAKER shall put all questions to the witnesses. When any debate should -arise, that the prisoner and his counsel be directed to withdraw; and, -when he has concluded his defence and withdrawn, that the sense of the -House be taken on the guilt or innocence of the prisoners, respectively. - -Mr. MADISON was of opinion that no citizen can be punished without the -solemnity of an oath to the fact. Of consequence, it is needful to the -information of members, if the punishment of a fellow-citizen is -implicated. Perhaps it may be urged that members, having taken an oath -to support the constitution, this supersedes the necessity of an oath in -the present case. - -Mr. GALLATIN thought it reasonable that members should be liable to be -questioned upon oath. That there was no precedent for it, had little -weight. There are many absurdities in the law of nations which gentlemen -would not wish to introduce here. - -Mr. SWIFT was against the members being subject to this regulation. The -case was quite novel to him. But this was, at first view, his way of -thinking. Suppose that some person in the gallery were to commit an -insult on the House, before the whole members, would it be necessary -that they should all swear to the offence before proceeding to punish -it? This Mr. S. regarded as a parallel case. - -Mr. THATCHER made a distinction when an offence had been committed in -presence of the whole House, and when committed out of their view. In -the former case, there could not be any use for evidence being sworn, -because the whole House had the testimony of their senses. It was -different when the circumstances occurred in another place; and Mr. T. -was convinced that the charge ought to be sworn to. The passage under -amendment was in these words: "That it should be reduced to writing;" -and the dispute was about adding the words, "and sworn to." Mr. T., -though for examining the members on oath as to the charge against -Randall, was opposed to the amendment as useless, because the members -must, in his opinion, be sworn when Randall is brought to the bar. The -mere declaration of a prosecutor, not under oath, and of a defendant in -the same situation, is equally exceptionable. A phrase had been -repeatedly used which Mr. T. did not understand. It was said that a -member was entitled "to stand up in his place" and give information so -and so. With the meaning of this expression Mr. T. was unacquainted, nor -did he know any law which authorized the imprisonment of a -fellow-citizen on a mere charge unsupported by oath. He did not see the -use of the amendment, but he was clearly satisfied that members ought -to be examined and sworn touching their accusations, as well as any -other persons. - -Mr. NICHOLAS was not, in this instance, for departing from the -principles of common law. Instead of supporting the dignity of the -House, about which so much has been spoken, he was afraid that, by -arrogating too much on the side of privilege, they might lessen their -dignity. He declared, upon his honor, that he thought the gentlemen -concerned should, for their own sakes, insist on being cross-examined by -the prisoner and his counsel. To be cross-examined implies no reflection -on a witness. The imperfection of human nature requires such a -precaution, and were Mr. N. a party, he would insist on being -cross-examined. The proposed amendment would narrow the business too -much. It would be better to lay it aside, and let the members be, as -above proposed, subject to cross-examination from the prisoner. - -Mr. MADISON said, that when Randall came to the bar he would possibly -save all this trouble, by confessing his guilt, and casting himself on -the mercy of the House. He mentioned an anecdote of a judge who had been -publicly insulted. He informed his brethren of the bench, and, on his -complaint, the offender was apprehended. When he was brought before the -court the oath was administered to the judge. Mr. M. related this story -to show the propriety of every accusation being sworn to, whatever may -be the rank or situation of the accuser. - - -MONDAY, January 4. - -_Presentation of the Flag of France._ - -The SPEAKER informed the House, that a Message was ready to be delivered -to the House, of a nature calculated to give the most pleasing -satisfaction to every American breast. He suggested to the House, and -the citizens in the galleries, the propriety of not suffering the fervor -of enthusiasm to infringe on the dignity of the Representative Councils -of the United States. He recommended that a respectful silence should be -observed, as most compatible with the true dignity of the House, and the -honor of the magnanimous Republic that was the subject of the Message. - -The PRESIDENT's Secretary was then introduced, with an American officer -bearing the Standard of the French Republic,[62] sent by the Committee -of Public Safety, Organ of the National Convention, as a token of -friendship to the United States. The Secretary presented a Message in -writing from the PRESIDENT, with sundry papers accompanying it, to the -SPEAKER, by whom they were read as follows: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - A letter from the Minister Plenipotentiary of the French - Republic, received on the 22d of the last month, covered an - Address, dated the 21st of October, 1794, from the - Committee of Public Safety to the Representatives of the - United States in Congress; and also informed me that he was - instructed by the committee to present to the United States - the Colors of France. I therefore proposed to receive them - last Friday, the first day of the new year, a day of - general joy and congratulation. On that day the Minister of - the French Republic delivered the Colors, with an Address, - to which I returned an answer. By the latter, the House - will see that I have informed the Minister that the Colors - will be deposited with the archives of the United States. - But it seemed to me proper previously to exhibit to the two - Houses of Congress these evidences of the continued - friendship of the French Republic, together with the - sentiments expressed by me on the occasion in behalf of the - United States. They are herewith communicated. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _January 4, 1796_. - -[TRANSLATION.] - - The Representatives of the French People, composing the - Committee of Public Safety of the National Convention, - charged by the laws of the 7th Fructidor, with the - direction of Foreign Relations, to the Representatives of - the United States of America in Congress assembled: - - _Citizens Representatives:_ The connections which nature, - reciprocal events, and a happy concurrence of - circumstances, have formed between two free nations, cannot - but be indissoluble. You have strengthened those sacred - ties by the declarations, which the Minister - Plenipotentiary of the United States has made, in your - name, to the National Convention, and to the French people. - They have been received with rapture by a nation who know - how to appreciate every testimony which the United States - have given to them of their affection. The Colors of both - nations, united in the centre of the National Convention, - will be an everlasting evidence of the part which the - United States have taken in the success of the French - Republic. - - You were the first defenders of the rights of man in - another hemisphere. Strengthened by your example, and - endowed with an invincible energy, the French people have - vanquished that tyranny, which, during so many centuries of - ignorance, superstition, and baseness, had enchained a - generous nation. - - Soon did the people of the United States perceive that - every victory of ours strengthened their independence and - happiness. They were deeply affected at our momentary - misfortunes, occasioned by treasons purchased by English - gold. They have celebrated with rapture the successes of - our brave armies. - - None of these sympathetic emotions have escaped the - sensibility of the French nation. They have all served to - cement the most intimate and solid union that has ever - existed between two nations. - - The citizen ADET, who will reside near your Government in - quality of Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republic, - is specially instructed to tighten these bands of - fraternity and mutual benevolence. We hope that he may - fulfil this principal object of his mission, by a conduct - worthy of the confidence of both nations, and of the - reputation which his patriotism and virtues have acquired - him. - - An analogy of political principles; the natural relations - of commerce and industry; the efforts and immense - sacrifices of both nations in the defence of liberty and - equality; the blood which they have spilled together; their - avowed hatred for despots; the moderation of their - political views; the disinterestedness of their councils; - and especially, the success of the vows which they have - made in presence of the Supreme Being, to be free or die; - all combine to render indestructible the connections which - they have formed. - - Doubt it not, citizens, we shall finally destroy the - combination of tyrants. You, by the picture of prosperity, - which, in your vast countries, has succeeded to a bloody - struggle of eight years; we, by the enthusiasm which glows - in the breast of every Frenchman. Astonished nations, too - long the dupes of perfidious Kings, Nobles, and Priests, - will eventually recover their rights, and the human race - will owe to the American and French nations their - regeneration and a lasting peace. - - Paris, 30th Vindemaire, 3d year of the French Republic, one - and indivisible. - - The Members of the Committee of Public Safety. - - J. S. B. DELMAS, - MERLIN (of Douai) &c. - - OCTOBER 21, 1794. - - * * * * * - -[TRANSLATION.] - - _Mr. President:_ I come to acquit myself of a duty very - dear to my heart; I come to deposit in your hands and in - the midst of a people justly renowned for their courage and - their love of liberty, the symbol of the triumphs and of - the enfranchisement of my nation. - - When she broke her chains; when she proclaimed the - imprescriptible rights of man; when, in a terrible war, she - sealed with her blood the covenant she had made with - Liberty, her own happiness was not alone the object of her - glorious efforts; her views extended also to all free - people. She saw their interests blended with her own, and - doubly rejoiced in her victories, which, in assuring to her - the enjoyment of her rights, became to them new guarantees - of their independence. - - These sentiments which animated the French nation from the - dawn of their revolution, have acquired new strength since - the foundation of the Republic. France, at that time, by - the form of its Government, assimilated to, or rather - identified with, free people, saw in them only friends and - brothers. Long accustomed to regard the American people as - her most faithful allies, she has sought to draw closer the - ties already formed in the fields of America, under the - auspices of victory, over the ruins of tyranny. - - The National Convention, the organ of the will of the - French nation, have more than once expressed their - sentiments to the American people; but above all, these - burst forth on that august day, when the Minister of the - United States presented to the National Representation the - Colors of his country. Desiring never to lose recollections - as dear to Frenchmen as they must be to Americans, the - Convention ordered that these Colors should be placed in - the hall of their sittings. They had experienced sensations - too agreeable not to cause them to be partaken of by their - allies, and decreed that, to them, the National Colors - should be presented. - - Mr. President, I do not doubt their expectations will be - fulfilled; and I am convinced that every citizen will - receive, with a pleasing emotion, this flag, elsewhere the - terror of the enemies of liberty, here the certain pledge - of faithful friendship; especially when they recollect that - it guides to combat, men who have shared their toils, and - who were prepared for liberty by aiding them to acquire - their own. - - P. A. ADET. - - * * * * * - - The Answer of the President of the United States to the - Address of the Minister Plenipotentiary of the French - Republic, on his presenting the Colors of France to the - United States: - - Born, sir, in a land of liberty; having early learned its - value; having engaged in a perilous conflict to defend it; - having, in a word, devoted the best years of my life to - secure its permanent establishment in my own country; my - anxious recollections, my sympathetic feelings, and my best - wishes, are irresistibly excited, whensoever, in any - country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banner of - freedom. But, above all, the events of the French - Revolution have produced the deepest solicitude, as well as - the highest admiration. To call your nation brave, were to - pronounce but common praise. Wonderful people! Ages to come - will read with astonishment the history of your brilliant - exploits! I rejoice that the period of your toils and of - your immense sacrifices is approaching. I rejoice that the - interesting revolutionary movements of so many years have - issued in the formation of a constitution designed to give - permanency to the great object for which you have - contended. I rejoice that liberty, which you have so long - embraced with enthusiasm; liberty, of which you have been - the invincible defenders, now finds an asylum in the bosom - of a regularly organized Government; a Government, which - being formed to secure the happiness of the French people, - corresponds with the ardent wishes of my heart, while it - gratifies the pride of every citizen of the United States - by its resemblance to their own. On these glorious events, - accept, sir, my sincere congratulations. - - In delivering to you these sentiments, I express not my own - feelings only, but those of my fellow-citizens, in relation - to the commencement, the progress, and the issue of the - French Revolution; and they will cordially join with me in - purest wishes to the Supreme Being, that the citizens of - our sister Republic, our magnanimous allies, may soon enjoy - in peace, that liberty which they have purchased at so - great a price, and all the happiness which liberty can - bestow. - - I receive, sir, with lively sensibility, the symbol of the - triumphs and of the enfranchisement of your nation--the - Colors of France--which you have now presented to the - United States. The transaction will be announced to - Congress, and the Colors will be deposited with those - archives of the United States, which are at once the - evidences and the memorials of their freedom and - independence. May these be perpetual, and may the - friendship of the two Republics be commensurate with their - existence. - - GEORGE WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _January 1, 1796_. - -When the reading of the Message and papers had been concluded-- - -Mr. GILES informed the House that, having been aware that the flag would -be presented to the House this day, considering it as an additional -testimony of the affection of France, and it having been the practice on -analogous occasions for the House to express their sentiments -independent of the other branch, he had prepared a resolution expressive -of what he conceived would be their sense on the occasion. It was nearly -in the words following: - - "_Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be - requested to make known to the Representatives of the - French people, that this House has received, with the most - lively sensibility, the communication of the Committee of - Public Safety, of the 21st of October, 1794, accompanied - with the Colors of the French Republic, and to assure them - that the presentation of the Colors of France to the - Congress of the United States is deemed a most honorable - testimony of the existing sympathy and affections of the - two Republics, founded upon their solid and reciprocal - interests; that the House rejoices in the opportunity of - congratulating the French Republic on the brilliant and - glorious achievements accomplished under it during the - present afflictive war, and that they hope those - achievements will be attended with a perfect attainment of - their object, the permanent establishment of the liberty - and happiness of that great and magnanimous people." - -Mr. PARKER moved an amendment as follows: "That this House has received -with the most _sincere and_ lively sensibility," &c. The amendment was -for inserting the two words in italics, to which the House consented. -The Message was then voted unanimously, and a thousand copies of the -communications and resolution were ordered to be printed. A committee of -two members was appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT, and inform him of -the resolution agreed to by the House. - - -_Case of Randall and Whitney._ - -Pursuant to the proceedings of the House on Friday last, Mr. SMITH, of -South Carolina, Mr. MURRAY, of Maryland, Mr. GILES, of Virginia, and Mr. -BUCK, of Vermont, delivered in at the Clerk's table their several -informations in writing, subscribed with their names, respectively, in -the cases of Robert Randall and Charles Whitney; which are as follow: - - Mr. MURRAY declares, that, on Wednesday last, the - twenty-third instant, Mr. Smith, member of Congress, of - South Carolina, informed him that a man of the name of - Randall, of Maryland, had, the evening before, attempted to - bribe him in Western lands, on condition of his supporting - an application which Randall told him he should soon make - to Congress; the object of which application was, a grant - from Congress of from eighteen to twenty millions of acres - of land, between Erie, Huron, and Michigan. That Mr. Smith - was extremely solicitous that some other gentleman should - immediately be informed of the infamous proposal, and that - he said he would mention it to Mr. Henry, of the Senate, - and advise with him upon proper measures for the detecting - of the full extent of the scheme, and crushing it: That he - had no opportunity of talking to Mr. Henry on that day; - but early on the morning of the twenty-fourth instant, - communicated the intelligence to Mr. Henry, who recommended - that Mr. Smith should immediately inform the President: - that on the said day, Mr. Randall, of Maryland, was - introduced to him, the informant, and requested a - confidential interview at his, the informant's lodgings, - which the informant readily promised him, to be at five, - for the purpose of developing his scheme. That Randall came - at or near five, that day last named, to wit: on Thursday, - and communicated to Mr. Henry and himself, in general - terms, the outline of a plan by which he, Randall, and his - Canada friends, would extinguish the Indian title to all - the lands between Lakes Erie, Huron, and Michigan, as - marked on a map which Randall then showed, containing from - eighteen to twenty millions of acres. That he, the - informant, then asked Randall into his apartment, where - they were alone. That Randall expatiated at first upon the - public utility of his scheme, which was that Congress - should grant to him and his company all the lands aforesaid - mentioned, for five hundred thousand, or, at most one - million of dollars; and that he would undertake, in four - months, that the harmony of the Indians should be secured - to the Union: or, if Congress thought proper, that the - Indian tribes now on said land should be removed to the - British side, or down Lake Michigan, reserving to some aged - chiefs a few miles square; that his company and himself had - determined to divide the lands aforesaid into forty (or - forty-one) shares. That of these shares twenty-four were to - be reserved for the disposal of himself and his partner, - now in town, for such members of Congress as assisted them, - by their abilities and votes, in obtaining the grant - aforesaid. That of these twenty-four shares, his partner - had twelve under his management for the Eastern members of - Congress, and that he, Randall, had the other twelve shares - under his management for the Southern members of Congress. - That these shares were to be so divided as to accomplish - the object by securing a majority of Congress. That the - informant started an objection to land speculation as - troublesome, and that he, Randall, said, if you (meaning - the informant) do not choose to accept your share of the - land, you shall have cash in hand for your share. That the - informant appointed Randall to meet him in the lobby of the - House, on Monday, the twenty-eighth instant. That Randall - told him a memorial was to be handed in upon this subject - on said Monday; but refused to inform the informant what - member was to present it. That Randall told him, that he, - Randall, mentioned his plan to some members in the _general - way_ only--meaning thereby, as he understood him, a view of - the sounder part of the plan, as being conducive to public - utility. That, in the early part of the confidential and - secret conversation, Randall said, that the members of - Congress who would behave handsomely, should come into - their shares on the same terms upon which the company - obtained the grant; but soon after, made proposals more - openly seductive and corrupt; closing them with the offer - of cash in hand as aforesaid. That the informant, on that - evening, when Randall went away, told Mr. Henry of the - whole of Randall's offers as aforesaid; then called on the - Secretary of State, and communicated the same to him; and - the next morning, early, informed the President of the - transaction. - - W. V. MURRAY. - - DECEMBER 29, 1795. - - [Mr. William Smith, of S. Carolina, Mr. William B. Giles, - of Virginia, Mr. Buck, of Vermont, and afterwards, Mr. - Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, severally gave in statements - corroborating that of Mr. Vans Murray.] - -It was then moved that Robert Randall should be brought to the bar of -the House. He was brought in accordingly. Seats were placed for the -Judge of the District of Pennsylvania, and the two counsellors for -Randall, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Tilghman, jr. The informations given in by -Mr. W. SMITH, Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. GILES, were read over, and the SPEAKER -asked the prisoner, what he had to say in his defence? I am not guilty. -You declare yourself not guilty? Yes. Have you any proof to cite that -you are not guilty? No. Are you ready to answer? - -Mr. Lewis[63] then rose. He observed, that these declarations had been -made in the absence of the prisoner, who, as he conceived, was entitled -to have been present. His request was, that the informants might now be -placed in a situation to be examined by the prisoner and his counsel, -and that the information may now be given in the prisoner's hearing. The -prisoner and his counsel were ordered to withdraw. - -Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH made the following motion: - - "That the prisoner be informed, that if he has any - questions to propose to the informants, or other members of - the House, he is at liberty to put them, (in the mode - already prescribed,) and that they be sworn to answer such - questions as shall be asked, and that the informants be - sworn to the declarations just read." - -The words in parenthesis were an amendment suggested by Mr. GILES. The -resolution and amendment were adopted by the House, and the prisoner -with his counsel were again brought to the bar. The resolution above -stated was read to Randall. - -Mr. W. SMITH, Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. GILES, were then sworn, standing up in -their places: the oath being administered by the Judge. - -Mr. Tilghman[63] then observed on the delicate situation in which the -counsel stood, with which they were strongly impressed. The high -character of the gentlemen who stood forth in support of the accusation, -gentlemen whom Mr. T. had known personally for many years, with the -odious nature of the crime charged on the prisoner, embarrassed them -considerably; as they had, however, been permitted by the House to -appear in this business, they were bound in duty to do every thing -consistent with a fair and honorable defence. If Mr. T. were to declare -his own opinion of the conduct of the prisoner, it would be thus, that -his behavior was highly improper and indelicate; but Mr. Randall denied -having made any offer either of lands or money, as in fact he had none -to give. The disposal of the lands depended entirely on the subsequent -vote of Congress. - -Mr. Lewis spoke a few words. The prisoner's defence was, that he denied -any proposal of a corrupt nature. The members who favored the sale of -the lands, were only to have their shares on the same terms, and on -paying an equal share of the expenses, as the other partners. - -Mr. W. SMITH was then examined upon that part of his information where -he says, that those members who should be concerned with Randall, were -to have shares of the lands. Mr. SMITH was asked whether the offer was -that they were to be granted at an inferior rate? In reply, he -understood it was to be on the same terms as other partners were to have -them. Mr. GOODHUE proposed a query, whether the offer made by Mr. -Randall was in order that Mr. SMITH might use his influence to forward -the scheme in Congress? Mr. SMITH replied, that he certainly understood -it so. The prisoner had all along referred to members of Congress, -though he did not expressly name them. His phrase was, "for persons who -would favor the scheme." - -Mr. Tilghman then, through the SPEAKER, asked Mr. MURRAY whether he -understood he was to pay for his share of land as the other associates -or not? - -Mr. MURRAY.--I understood him as is explained in the declaration. At -first I understood, that the members who should assist in getting the -thing through, might then retire to their homes, and when the scheme was -in activity they might come in on the same terms as the original -associates. But afterwards, I understood from Randall that I might have -a share if I would accept of it, and this I understood from the whole -tenor of the latter part of his conversation. The shares set apart were -to be for acceptance as donations. I so understood him. - -Mr. Tilghman.--Did he expressly say, that they were intended as -donations, or did Mr. MURRAY collect this to be the man's meaning from a -variety of circumstances? - -Mr. MURRAY.--He did not say, if you will do so and so, I will give you -so and so; his proposal, though more delicate, was as unequivocal as a -direct offer. I so understood him. - -Mr. HARPER asked Mr. MURRAY, whether Randall did not tell him, that if -he did not like land, he should have money, and whether the money was -not to be more than the value of the share of land? - -Mr. MURRAY said, that from this part, and indeed the general tenor of -the conversation, he did infer, that a donation was intended, and when -he objected to land, the prisoner then said, if he did not choose to -accept of a share in land, he might have cash in hand. - -Mr. Lewis, counsel for the prisoner, asked Mr. MURRAY, whether he did -not state to Randall his aversion to dealing in land, and whether -Randall did not say that this need not be an objection, since the share -might be sold, and then that he would have cash instead of land? - -Mr. MURRAY.--I did not so understand it. - -Mr. HARPER wished Mr. MURRAY to relate, as nearly as possible, the words -of the prisoner in this important part of the conversation. - -Mr. MURRAY said, that immediately after it took place, and he had -communicated it to his friends, he took notes of it. It stood in this -manner: "I stated objections to land speculations as troublesome: -Randall then said, if I did not choose land, I might have cash in hand." - -Mr. Tilghman asked, whether Mr. MURRAY did not, to get the man's whole -secret from him, go beyond his views to draw him on? - -Mr. MURRAY said, he affected to think well of the more sound part of the -plan. - -Mr. Tilghman asked what Mr. MURRAY expressed to Randall when it was -proposed to him to engage in the land scheme? - -Mr. MURRAY.--A strong repugnance to land speculations. - -Mr. Lewis.--Then it was, he said, that if it was not convenient for Mr. -MURRAY to be concerned in a share in land, he might have it in money? - -Mr. MURRAY.--Yes. - -Mr. S. SMITH was next sworn. There was here a motion made for -adjourning. - -Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Tilghman and himself had never seen the -prisoner until yesterday in the evening. They had been in Court until -late on Saturday evening. They went yesterday to prison, and back again -this morning. They had received a long written state of the case from -Mr. Randall, but, from absolute want of time, they had not been able to -read one third part of it. The motion to adjourn was negatived. - -Mr. S. SMITH was then proceeding with his evidence, when Mr. SEDGWICK -rose. He considered it as unfair to examine Mr. SMITH in order to prove -the information given by other gentlemen. It was totally inapplicable. -The offences were as distinct as any two things could be. - -Mr. BLOUNT moved to put this question, whether any conversation passed -between Mr. S. SMITH and Randall, which had an appearance of intending -to corrupt the integrity of members of this House. - -Mr. SEDGWICK objected, that this was deviating from the original -specific motion. Mr. GILES was of an opposite opinion. Mr. MADISON -thought the motion proper, in the strictest sense. The charge was -general; and the answer to the question might be of a nature to -corroborate that general charge. After a few words from some other -members, the motion was carried. - -Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, then on oath stated in substance as follows: - -That on the 9th or 10th, Randall, whom he had known in Maryland, called -on him and asked half an hour's conversation with him. He said he had a -plan in view, that would be to the advantage of the United States, and -turn to his own private emolument. - -Randall informed Mr. S., that he was last year at New York, that he -thence went to Detroit to explore the country on Lakes Erie, &c., that -he contracted an acquaintance with certain influential characters with -whom he had formed an association to procure the lands in question. He -mentioned the outlines of the plan and dwelt on the public advantages -that would arise from it. He indirectly insinuated that gentlemen in -Congress who chose to be interested in the plan might have a portion of -the land in contemplation. He asked Mr. S. to fix a day when he should -enter more particularly into a detail of the business. Mr. S. fixed -Saturday following, and then retired into the room where his -fellow-lodger was, and told him that some great land-business was on -foot and that he believed he might make his fortune. On Sunday Randall -came with a map on which he explained the position of the land and -expatiated on the richness of the soil. He detailed the particulars of -the project which Mr. S. related as has been heretofore stated with some -little variations. He enlarged upon the public advantages to the United -States if the purchase was allowed. He said, he would be glad if Mr. S. -would embark in the undertaking, and give the plan his countenance; but, -that, if he did not choose to so do, it could be accomplished without -his assistance, as a decided majority of both Houses were agreed to -support it. Mr. S. asked him, whether in the Senate? he said, yes. He -asked him for names; he objected to mentioning any. Randall explained, -that members who were most active were to have larger shares, and such -as only gave their assent, smaller; Mr. S. understood that he might have -one of the larger. No money was offered as a temptation to engage, but -he fully understood that every gentleman was to pay his full proportion -of the price. He stated to Mr. S., that it would save the United States -much in men and money to have the scheme accomplished, and added, that -if Congress desired it, he could remove the Miami Indians to the other -side of the lakes. Mr. S. asked him what he proposed should be offered -for the lands. He said, that would remain in the breasts of the -gentlemen in Congress. Mr. S. asked whether one dollar an acre could be -afforded, he objected to that as by far too much. Mr. S. mentioned -twenty-five cents, that was too much. Mr. S. then suggested that he -supposed two and a half cents were contemplated. Randall answered, that -if Congress fixed this price it would be well so. He offered no direct -bribe to Mr. S., but proposed to take such members into the scheme at -first cost as chose to embark in it. Mr. S. asked him who was to offer -his memorial. He mentioned a gentleman of great weight in the House. - -Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, asked the date of this conversation. - -Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, answered, on the Sunday following the 10th, -which must have been the 13th. - -Mr. Lewis, through the SPEAKER, asked Mr. S., of Maryland, whether -Randall had not said, that he had actually a majority in favor of his -scheme; or, that he expected to get a majority? - -Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, understood that he had a majority, and on this -ground, he said to Mr. S. that his co-operation was not absolutely -necessary. - -The prisoner was remanded, and the House adjourned. - - -TUESDAY, January 5. - -_Case of Robert Randall._ - -After disposing of the morning business-- - -Robert Randall was then brought to the bar, attended by his two counsel; -the Judge of the District of Pennsylvania likewise took his seat, as -yesterday, at the Clerk's table. The SPEAKER then addressed the prisoner -as follows: "Robert Randall, this is the day and hour, to which your -farther examination was postponed; you are now at liberty to proceed -with your defence." - -Mr. GILES then moved that Mr. CHRISTIE should be sworn. This was done. -The member then stated that he had been at Philadelphia, about the month -of October last. He met with Mr. Randall, who made up to him, and -observed that he had this summer been in Canada. He had missed the -object for which he went; but he had met with another which he thought -would prove advantageous. He at first advised Mr. Randall to apply to -the Secretary of State. Mr. Randolph had just then resigned his office; -and no other person was appointed in his stead. Mr. C. then advised him -to lay the affair before the PRESIDENT. When he came back to town at the -sitting down of Congress, Randall came again to him, and said that by -good advice he had altered his plan. He complained that Mr. C. was the -only member who had not been ready to assist him. A considerable -majority of the House of Representatives were secured to the scheme. Mr. -C. said, that he never would advise Congress to sell their lands under a -dollar per acre; and as Mr. Randall wanted the lands so much cheaper, he -must in the course of his duty oppose the plan. Mr. C. inquired who were -his advisers. He answered, that Mr. Whitney had told him that Mr. -SEDGWICK recommended this way of proceeding, and was to draw up a -memorial to be laid before the House upon the subject. - -Mr. SEDGWICK finding his name thus unexpectedly introduced, wished to be -allowed to give oath in order that he should tell all he knew. - -The oath was administered to Mr. SEDGWICK, who gave information to the -following effect: He had never in his life seen Randall, till he was -produced at the bar. Whitney he had seen two or three times. The Mr. -Jones mentioned by Whitney, in his declaration lives within about -thirty-four miles of Mr. SEDGWICK's house. Whitney, with Mr. Jones, -came, a considerable time ago, to him one morning, while he was at -breakfast. They asked his opinion; which was, that Government would not -sell any lands, till the Indian claim was first extinguished. Mr. Jones -endeavored to convince Mr. SEDGWICK of the benefits which would result -to the United States from this sale. Mr. SEDGWICK accompanied them to -the door of his house, where Mr. Jones asked him whether there would be -any thing improper in a member of the Legislature being concerned in -such a purchase? Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this would depend entirely on -the mode of application. If it was to the Land Office, there would be -nothing wrong in it; if to Congress, then it would be a man making a -bargain with himself. Whitney, since Mr. SEDGWICK came to town, had -called two or three times on him. He got his servant for more than once -to deny him, as he was busy. Once, however, he did see him; the first -question of Mr. SEDGWICK was, from what State did he come? He said he -resided in Vermont. He then spoke of the matter in a general way; and -Mr. SEDGWICK, whose object it was to shake him off, advised his calling -on Mr. BUCK, a member from that State, as it would be more proper to -call on him. Mr. SEDGWICK believed that he was more teazed with -applications of this private kind than any member in the House. During -the conference with Whitney, he did not remember that Randall's name was -ever introduced. Mr. SEDGWICK heard, with astonishment, the name of -Colonel Pepune mentioned. He lived opposite to Mr. SEDGWICK's house, in -the town of Stockbridge. He rode down from that place to New York, along -with Mr. SEDGWICK, and never spoke one word of the matter to him. - -Randall had, among other stories, told Mr. SAMUEL SMITH that Mr. WM. -SMITH _should_ bring forward this land business, in the House. He -positively said so to Mr. S. SMITH on the 13th of December, and it would -be proved that he had never exchanged a word with Mr. W. SMITH, nor ever -seen him till the 22d of that month, viz: _about nine days after_. This -is the substance of a short explanation which took place between some of -the members, after Mr. SEDGWICK had ended his declaration. Mr. W. SMITH -then asked Randall, whether it was not true, that he spoke to Mr. SAMUEL -SMITH before he spoke to himself? Mr. Tilghman, in reply, said that he -was authorized to answer in the affirmative. This puts to rest the story -related by Randall to the member from Baltimore. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 6. - -_Case of Robert Randall._ - -Mr. SEDGWICK laid before the House some additions to his evidence, -delivered yesterday. He gave in a written copy of the whole, and wished -that it might be added to the declaration already made. The paper was -read, and, on motion, ordered to be inserted in the journals. Mr. -SEDGWICK said he had yesterday mentioned Col. Pepune being in -Philadelphia, but he had not seen him. He has since done so. The -Colonel lodges at the sign of the Drover, in Third street, and is -ready, when called upon by the House, to tell every circumstance which -he knows about the transaction of Randall or Whitney. - -Mr. W. SMITH submitted, whether it would be proper to proceed any -farther in the case of Randall, till some hearing had been given to -Whitney. - -It was then moved by a member that the case of Randall should be -postponed. After some conversation as to the point of order, the motion -was negatived. - -Mr. HARPER then read two resolutions. Of the first, the following is the -substance: - - "_Resolved_, That any attempt to influence the conduct of - this House, or its members, on subjects appertaining to - their Legislative functions, by motives other than the - public advantage, is a high contempt of this House, and a - breach of its privileges." - -The second resolution was, in substance, that Randall having committed -such an offence, was guilty of such a contempt, &c. - -Mr. HARPER thought it proper, before deciding as to Randall, to lay down -certain principles, and decide whether the offence was in itself -criminal or not, before determining the conduct of the prisoner. - -Mr. KITCHELL thought these resolutions unnecessary. The only thing -before the House was to call on the prisoner, and pronounce him either -innocent or guilty. - -Mr. HARPER, in defence of his resolutions, said, that one misfortune -attending privileges was, that they could not be exactly defined; but, -as far as they could be ascertained, it was the business of the House to -do so. If this offence is a breach of privilege, we are entitled to -declare it such, that the people of the United States may be informed -that it is so. - -Mr. W. SMITH could not conceive how any member would vote against this -first resolution. If we refuse to say that the act itself is a crime, -how can we condemn Randall as criminal? We are, in every sense of the -word, bound to vote for the proposition. We have declared the attempt of -Randall to be a high offence and contempt. If any member thinks it not -so, then, to be sure, he will vote against it. Mr. SMITH said that -Legislative bodies had frequently, while a prisoner was on trial before -them, laid down rules to guide them, previous to their pronouncing -sentence. A former member had suggested that it was better to make the -resolution a preamble to the sentence, and introduce it with a -_whereas_. As it stands at present, it is agreeable to what had been -done already. - -Mr. NICHOLAS hoped that members were not to be bound by any thing yet -done. At the first embarking of the House in this affair, he had felt -doubts. His scruples had gradually augmented, and he was now of opinion -that Randall should not have been meddled with at all, in the present -way. The right of privilege had been given up, unless in cases of -absolute necessity. He did not think that any resolution had yet passed -the House, upon due consideration, whether they had a right to proceed -or not. Mr. NICHOLAS recommended lenity, rather than a parade of -integrity, where there was no ground of suspicion--a parade which would -not have been made if there had been any real danger. - -Mr. WILLIAMS thought the resolutions altogether unnecessary. The -principle is already entered on the journals. All that the House have to -do is to declare Randall guilty or not. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE agreed with Mr. WILLIAMS, but he was astonished at the -doctrine held up by the gentleman from Virginia. We had been told -yesterday, at the bar, that the offence is not punishable by the common -law. We are not to do so by privilege. The consequence is, that an -attempt to corrupt members cannot be punished at all. It would not be -proper to tell this to the public. Any body may then come here and bid -for votes. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE thought that the counsel yesterday had fairly given up the -point, for they admitted that improper violence without doors was a -breach of privilege. Mr. H. argued that this was as great a violence as -could be. He was for inflicting a punishment. - -Mr. LIVINGSTON thought the wording of the first clause too broad. Any -member spoken to without doors might come into the House and complain of -a breach of privilege on trifling grounds. - -Mr. GILES would not at present enter into the question whether there had -been a breach of privilege or not. From any thing yet seen, he was -doubtful. He was against the preamble. Privilege was of an insinuating -nature. Mr. LIVINGSTON had taken up a thought which occurred to Mr. -GILES. Any man meeting on the street a member of this House, may say to -him, "Sir, by voting for such a thing in the House, you will destroy -your popularity in your district." This argument was not on motives of -public good, and a member might by this resolution be warranted to come -into the House and complain of it as a breach of privilege. He wished -for the previous question, which was taken, and by a great majority the -resolution was negatived. - -Mr. LIVINGSTON then read two resolutions. Their tenor was, that it -appears to this House that Robert Randall has been guilty of a contempt -and a breach of the privileges of this House, by attempting to corrupt -the integrity of its members, in the manner laid to his charge, and that -Randall should be called up to the bar, reprimanded by the SPEAKER, and -recommitted to custody, till further orders from this House. - -On the first resolution the yeas and nays were called for--yeas 78, nays -17. - -After some conversation, the second resolution was likewise agreed to. - -Randall was then brought to the bar, and in a few words reprimanded by -the SPEAKER. To call his offence indiscretion, impropriety, or -indelicacy, was too mild a name. His conduct was _crime_. His apparent -ignorance of the nature and extent of his guilt had induced the House to -be more indulgent than they otherwise would have been. The SPEAKER -informed him that he was recommitted to custody till further orders from -the House. - - -THURSDAY, January 7. - -_Case of Charles Whitney._ - -Mr. WHITNEY was now brought in. The SPEAKER addressed him as follows: -"Charles Whitney, the information lodged against you on the journals of -the House will now be read to you by the Clerk." This was accordingly -done. - -Mr. WHITNEY was next asked at what time he would be ready to proceed -with his defence? He replied that he thought he could be ready to go on -just now, if he had counsel. If he could get them to-morrow, he should -be glad to go on then, in order to get the thing over. If counsel could -not be got, he would request a delay till Monday. He was sure Mr. BUCK -had mistaken his meaning. He was told that he would be called on again -to-morrow, and if he had not been able to obtain counsel then, there was -a probability of his being allowed a delay till Monday. - -Mr. BOURNE stated the hardship of obliging the prisoner to fee counsel; -no probability existing of any thing farther being brought against him. -There was but little in the charge, admitting it to be true. Mr. B. made -a distinction of the conversation having passed in Vermont, not in -Philadelphia. It was before Mr. BUCK came to Congress at all. - -Mr. GILES had yesterday expressed but little satisfaction at the mode of -conducting this business, nor had his satisfaction been since augmented -by further reflection. He read a motion, which was seconded, for -dismissing Whitney immediately. Admitting all which stood charged, Mr. -GILES did not consider it as containing any breach of privilege. - -Mr. W. SMITH regarded this resolution as premature; he wished to have -the regular forms of trial gone through, as in the other case. When the -trial was finished, the House could then decide on the guilt or -innocence of the prisoner. He thought that Mr. BUCK ought to be sworn. -When the offer was made in Vermont, he was looked upon as a member of -Congress, and the temptation which had been held out to him was a -contempt of the House. There was not yet a sufficient explanation to -justify his discharge. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE supposed corruption to be equally criminal in Vermont as -in Philadelphia. It would commit the dignity of the House to say that we -have kept a man in jail for a week, and then have dismissed him without -a trial. It implies that we never had any right to arrest him. Mr. H. -had not formed his ultimate opinion on the subject. He wished the trial -to be gone through, and then, if the prisoner proved innocent, dismiss -him. He had made application to a member in this town, besides Mr. BUCK -in Vermont. [Mr. GOODHUE, on whom Mr. Whitney called, after he came to -Philadelphia.] - -Mr. BUCK objected to the immediate dismission of Whitney. It struck him -as an impropriety to dismiss the prisoner by an unqualified resolution. -It would be better to state, as a reason, that the attempt to corrupt -the integrity of a member had happened in Vermont, before the sitting -down of Congress. Then let the question come forward and be tried. - -Mr. SEDGWICK had, more than was usual with him, avoided speaking on this -question. He early entertained an idea that an application to a member -of Congress, before it sat, was not a breach of privilege. It was an -unfortunate circumstance when the same persons were to be both judges -and parties. People were apt to get into a passion when one came to them -and said, "I consider you as rascals, and I want to purchase a portion -of your rascality." - -Mr. MADISON said, it appeared to him that the House could have no -privileges, unless what arises from the necessity of the case. He -differed from the opinion formed by the House, but he wished them to act -in conformity to their own principle. The object at present before the -House is, to keep its members free from corruption. Whether a proposal -is made in town or country, if we dismiss names and circumstances, and -look only to the substance of the thing, there is no distinction between -the two cases. - -Mr. PAGE said, that if the motion for dismissing had come on a week ago, -he would have voted for it. He wished to get rid of the matter as fast -as possible. He alluded, though not in direct terms, to the idea of Mr. -Lewis, that it would have been better to have kicked some people down -stairs, than to have made them objects of prosecution. - -Mr. HARPER considered it as a material distinction between a member -being attacked and beaten, for example, in Philadelphia, during his -attendance on Congress, and the same accident occurring during the -recess, in a distant part of the country. It was admitted that the -doctrine of privilege violated the rights of the people, and could be -justified only upon the plea of necessity: it being so liable to -misapprehension and misconstruction, he wished to see as little of it as -possible. He gave his hearty concurrence to the resolution of Mr. GILES. -He had been desirous of seeing such a thing brought forward. He adverted -to the delicate situation of the House, at once accusers, judges, and -witnesses. - -Mr. GALLATIN spoke a few words in favor of the motion. - -Mr. ISAAC SMITH was persuaded that the House possesses privileges, and -has a right to exert them. They are pointed out by the constitution. Mr. -S. wished to dismiss the prisoner. It had been said that dismissing him -without a trial, after having apprehended and confined him, would be -casting a reflection on the House. No such thing! There existed probable -grounds of suspicion. We have waited full time, and no proof has come -forward. Then let him go, and the sooner that we do it the better. - -When Mr. ISAAC SMITH sat down, Mr. GILES rose to offer a resolution, in -place of his former one: - - "_Resolved_, That it appears to this House that the - information lodged against Charles Whitney does not amount - to a breach of the privileges of this House, and that he - therefore be discharged from custody." - -Mr. FREEMAN voted yesterday in a minority for dismissing Randall. He -would this day vote for discharging Whitney. As to the dignity of the -House, even an outrage upon it could be as well punished by a Justice of -the Peace as by ourselves. He stated the extreme difficulty of adopting, -in practice, the doctrine laid down, that an improper offer made to a -member when in the country, was to be punished as a breach of privilege. -A member, suppose from Georgia, comes here, and tells a story of -somebody in that State who has made him an unsuitable proposal: the -Sergeant-at-Arms is instantly despatched a thousand miles to bring this -person to the bar for contempt of the House. What kind of a business -would this be? - -Mr. HARTLEY thought the resolution last offered by Mr. GILES had too -much narrowed the ground of dismissing Whitney. He had been taken up as -an associate with Randall. The charge had not been properly supported by -evidence. Dismiss him, and let the want of proof be your reason for it. -Mr. H. cordially agreed with the substance of the resolution, but he -objected to the wording of it. - -Mr. KITCHELL pointed out the wide distinction between the cases of -Randall and Whitney. It had been said that the latter must be criminal, -for he was an associate with Randall. Mr. K. saw no such thing. There -was no criminality in the bond. Keep a man in jail week after week upon -idle suspicion! Injustice, Whitney ought to have been tried at first, -when he declared himself ready for trial. Mr. K. was for discharging him -this day. - -Mr. HARPER now moved an amendment to the resolution before the House: it -was in these words: - - "Inasmuch as the proposals made by the said Whitney took - place before the member to whom they were addressed had - taken his seat in the House." - -Mr. GILES.--If the amendment succeeded, he would vote against the whole -proposition. This was a renewal of the attempt to define privilege. It -was not practicable. Every case of the kind must stand upon its own -merits. Mr. G. would vote against the amendment. - -Mr. MACON read a resolution, that Charles Whitney be discharged from the -custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. This was, in fact, reducing the second -resolution offered by Mr. GILES back into his first one. - -Mr. SEDGWICK thought it an awkward thing to attempt giving any reasons. -If gentlemen are willing to agree to discharge Mr. Whitney, they ought -to discharge him. They assign different reasons for the same -proceedings, and will not consent to it, but each in his own particular -mode. - -Mr. HARPER was astonished to hear so many invincible objections to -telling the motives why we agree in a measure. It had been complained -that privilege was undefined; that it was an assuming, creeping monster. -An attempt had been made to define it, in part, and this also had been -objected to. - -Mr. MACON said, that he would vote to discharge Whitney, for a -particular reason alleged by Mr. GILES. - -Now, replied Mr. GILES, if the gentleman is to vote for the dismission -because that is my reason, I desire him to vote against the dismission. -My reason for discharging Whitney is totally different. I argue, that -all which we have entered on the journals, admitting it proved, does not -amount to any breach of our privileges. That is my motive for dismissing -the prisoner. - -An amendment was proposed to strike out of the resolution of Mr. GILES -the following words: "That it appears to this House, that the -information lodged against Charles Whitney, does not amount to a breach -of the privileges of this House; and." The amendment was agreed to--ayes -43, noes 41. - -It was then moved to alter the remainder of the resolution, by striking -out the word "he," and inserting "Charles Whitney." The amendment was -adopted; and the resolution so amended, stood thus: - - _Resolved_, That Charles Whitney be discharged from the - custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. - -This, also, was agreed to. - - -FRIDAY, January 8. - -JEREMIAH CRABB, from Maryland, appeared, was qualified, and took his -seat. - -_Indian Trading Houses._ - -The House went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair, -on the bill to establish trading houses for the Indian tribes. - -Mr. DAYTON objected to the bill, so far as it empowers those who are to -sell the goods to the Indians, to procure or purchase the goods. He -considered the uniting these powers in the same persons as highly -exceptionable and liable to great abuse. He moved to strike out the -words "procure or." - -Mr. PARKER said that the objection was misapplied, for subsequent -clauses placed the business under the special direction of the PRESIDENT -OF THE UNITED STATES. He should not, however, object to striking out the -words. His view in rising was merely to justify the committee who -reported the bill, as they had supposed that sufficient guards were -provided. - -Mr. GILES did not think the reason given for retaining the words -sufficient. The PRESIDENT cannot be supposed to have such cognizance of -every part of this business as will enable him to secure the public, or -Indians, from imposition. He was for increasing the checks against -abuse. - -The motion for striking out was agreed to. - -In the third section, Mr. SEDGWICK objected to the words "laying aside -all view of gain by the trade." They might operate disadvantageously to -the people of the United States, if Government should enter into this -trade on a principle that would preclude all private adventures in the -same line by citizens. The words were expunged. - -Mr. PARKER presented a substitute. It relates to compensation of agents -and clerks to be employed. The sum of ---- dollars was to be -appropriated. The substitute was adopted by the committee. - -In the seventh section, Mr. SEDGWICK moved an amendment, providing for -the forfeiture of licenses in case of contravening the provisions of the -law. This motion was withdrawn in order to introduce the provision -elsewhere. - -Mr. MILLEDGE moved to strike out the whole of this seventh section. It -appeared to him to involve provisions which would be proper in another -law, but in this bill blended two different subjects. - -Mr. SEDGWICK considered the provisions in this section referring to -certain rules for regulating the public trade with the Indians, as -proper, since similar rules would be made in regulating the trade of -individuals with Indians. On this ground he was for retaining the -section. - -It was moved to modify the section by confining the provisions to "the -agents or clerks," specially employed by the United States. This -amendment was agreed to. - -On the motion of Mr. SEDGWICK, the last clause of the seventh section, -relative to the oath or affirmation, was expunged. - -The committee then rose; the Chairman reported the bill with the -amendments, which were taken up, and agreed to by the House, with one -verbal amendment. - -Mr. SWIFT expressed his disapprobation of the bill. He thought the -object unattainable to any important extent. He disapproved of public -bodies being concerned in trade. It is always managed better by -individuals. Great loss and dilapidation are the consequence; nor is it -possible to guard against frauds and abuses. The public have no money to -spare. It is the opinion of the Committee of Ways and Means, that -additional taxes will be necessary for the public service. We must not -tax our constituents for the sake of trading with the Indians. He hoped -not. Mr. S. concluded by a motion for striking out the first section. - -Mr. PARKER supported the principle of the bill; he wished a fair -experiment to be made. The plan is founded on humanity and benevolence. -It has been recommended by the PRESIDENT from year to year. Mr. P., on -this subject, had been in sentiment with him. It was well-known he had -never lightly advocated a disbursement of public money; on this -occasion, it would be a saving of public money. It will cost much less -to conciliate the good opinion of the Indians than to pay men for -destroying them. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE was in favor of an experiment. Much had been anticipated -from the plan; a beginning had been made, and he thought it best to try -it for such a length of time as would afford a fair experiment of what -could be done. - -Mr. SWANWICK said he was in favor of the principles of the bill, were it -merely as a change from our usual system of Indian affairs. We have -hitherto pursued war at an expense of a million and a half of dollars -nearly annually; let us now try the fruits of commerce, that beneficent -power which cements and civilizes so many nations; barbarous till they -became acquainted with its influence. To encourage us, indeed, a fact -has come to our knowledge on the investigation of the case of Randall. -Gentlemen will remember his assertions to them, and the deed read in the -House, in which so much was stated of the influence of the Canada -traders over the Indians: well, let us try to balance or countervail -this influence; but it has been observed, our private citizens will do -this sufficiently in the way of their private trade. In general I am -friendly to let commerce take its own level without Governmental -interference; but the little influence our traders have yet obtained, -shows plainly enough defective capital or a defective extent of trade; -both are to be apprehended. So many objects of speculation offer in this -country, that individuals may not pay sufficient attention to this -branch, in which they have so powerful a British interest to contend -with. Government, alone, can do this in the infancy of the commerce. Let -the experiment be made; we can lose little by it; we may gain a great -deal. It has been observed, that this act has been rejected in three -different sessions of Congress already; and this is argued as a proof of -its want of merit; but this has been the fate in England of the -navigation act; it was hundreds of years struggling to get into -existence, but was not the less acceptable when at last it succeeded. -Perhaps we may find this bill, on experience, none the worse for the -difficulties, which, as an untried step, it has hitherto had to -encounter: it is recommended by general reasoning; let us try it; we can -only repeal it if we find it does not answer the sanguine expectations -entertained of it. - -Mr. MACON[64] was opposed to the bill. He thought the circumstance of -the business having been so long in agitation, was a reason why it -should be longer considered. The reason for delay was certainly not -weakened by that. The business was highly improper for Government to -embark in. - -Mr. MURRAY had but one idea to suggest, as it was unnecessary to go over -the general policy, which had been amply stated by other gentlemen. -There appeared to him two objects; first, the securing the Indian -friendship by a supply of their wants; second, the supplanting the -British traders in their influence over the tribes whose hostilities -might embarrass us. To the last object, therefore, the meditated mode of -supply by public agency was peculiarly well adapted. The Indians are now -supplied by a great company long established, very wealthy, and -possessing this influence, in which we must supplant them. We are to -consider whether, if private individuals are left to be the only -competitors with the Canada company, this influence and this trade will -be transferred agreeably to sound policy. He thought they would not. -Small capitalists, and adventurers young in this trade, would certainly -prove unequal to a competition with so well established and rich a -company as the Canada company. It was no uncommon thing for great -companies, when they were apprehensive of what they would call -interlopers, to crush all competition by making a voluntary sacrifice of -a few thousand pounds sterling. By underselling, on a large scale, for a -time, and even a certain loss, they secured themselves in future from -competition. This great company can afford to pay this price for the -perpetuity of this trade and influence. In order to meet the capital of -this company, we must not trust to individual small capitalists. By a -sum appropriated by Government to the object, however large the capital -in competition in Canada, the Government will be able to beat down the -trade of this company and place it in American hands; and in a few years -after the competition has ceased, the Government may then withdraw its -agency, and leave it to private capitals, to which the field will then -have been rendered easy. - -The motion of Mr. SWIFT was negatived; and the bill was ordered to be -engrossed for a third reading. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 19. - -_Appropriations for 1796._ - -The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill making -appropriations for the support of Government in the year 1796. - -Mr. WILLIAMS, agreeably to notice given on a former day, moved to strike -out all that gross sum appropriated for the officers of the Mint.[65] - -Mr. W. SMITH said that a great proportion of the sum was for salaries -established by law. They must be paid, till the law is repealed. If the -gentleman means to suspend the whole appropriation bill till an inquiry -is gone through with respect to the Mint, the bill may be delayed for -two months, and the consequence be the greatest embarrassment in -Government. - -Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH had never been much in favor of the Mint, nor had -experience increased his good opinion of it. But passing this -appropriation bill would not prevent a full investigation of this -subject hereafter. He was for deferring any proceeding about the Mint -till the select committee made their report. He opposed the motion. - -Mr. SEDGWICK thought that the course which the gentleman is pursuing had -never been adopted before. It is incorrect to discuss the merits of the -Mint in passing this bill. We might as well take up the salary of the -Chief Justice, or any other article in the bill, as the Mint. We never -should have done, at this rate. We are now only to vote for the bill, as -agreeable to the laws already made. Mr. SEDGWICK said that if the -gentleman from New York (Mr. WILLIAMS) would bring forward any -proposition for the regulation, or even the abolition of the -establishment of the Mint, if it could be proved productive of public -benefit, he, with every other gentleman, would give him their aid to -effect the object; but that now, he conceived, it could not regularly be -brought forward. He thought an appropriation bill should be conformed -exactly to the state of the public engagements, and that where -establishments had been formed and salaries provided, the amount of them -should be the principle of calculating the amount of appropriations; and -that the House ought not, by withholding appropriations, to break in -upon and destroy establishments formed by the whole Legislature. That -these observations had hitherto been sanctioned by the practice on this -subject. He observed, that if the House was to investigate, in the -discussion of an appropriation bill, the amount of salaries and the -legal establishments of Government, the public service would be -dangerously destroyed. He remarked, that it was to be observed that no -appropriation was made, for any purpose, since the commencement of the -year. - -Mr. GALLATIN felt alarmed at the principle advanced by Mr. SEDGWICK, -for, if admitted, it might be applied in future on some other and -important occasion. The motion made by the member from New York ought -not, perhaps, to be adopted; but there was certainly a discretionary -power in the House to appropriate or not to appropriate for any object -whatever, whether that object was authorized by law or not. It was a -power which, however inexpedient on the present occasion, was vested in -this House for the purpose of checking the other branches of Government -whenever necessary. That such a right was reserved by this body, -appeared from their making only yearly appropriations for the support of -the Civil List and of the Military Establishment. Had they meant to give -up the right, they would have such appropriations _permanent_. There was -one instance in which this House had thought it proper to abandon the -right. In order to strengthen public credit, they had consented that -the payment of interest on the debt should not depend on their sole -will, and they had rendered the appropriation for that object not a -yearly, but a permanent one. Whenever that was not the case, and the -right had been reserved, it was contradictory to suppose that the House -were bound to do a certain act, at the same time that they were -exercising the discretionary power of voting upon it. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said that he certainly had no intention to have given -occasion to the observations which had been made; but, as the general -principle which he had laid down had been denied, and as it had some -relation, either intimate or remote, to the subject before the -committee, he would take the liberty to repeat the principle, and say a -few words in support of it. - -The principle, then, which he had assumed, was, that when legal -establishments were made, it was the duty of the Legislature to make -appropriations conformably to the public engagements; and that neither -branch had a right to withhold its assent. He observed that the whole -Legislature, and not a part, were competent to form contracts, and to -establish and alter compensations and salaries. The Legislature, and not -either branch of it, had the power of expressing the public will, and -pledging the public faith; that when a salary is ascertained, the public -faith is pledged that it shall be paid, according to the stipulation; -and that, therefore, the public credit is involved in making the -necessary appropriations, without which it could not be paid. He asked, -if, in such a case, it was competent to the House rightfully to withhold -the means necessary for the performance of the public engagement? - -He said he had always supposed that the power of the House, in the case -of appropriations, did not give a power to yield or withhold assent on -such a subject. He believed, in every such instance, the exercise of -discretion was restrained. To illustrate his ideas, he could mention a -similar instance. The constitution had declared that the PRESIDENT -should receive a stated compensation for his services, to be ascertained -by law, which could neither be diminished nor enlarged during the term -for which he should have been elected. Here was a duty imposed on the -Legislature, with the performance of which they could not, they had no -power to dispense. Yet, after the compensation was stated, no payment -could be made in consequence of appropriating. He asked, if, in this -case, when the public will was expressed, the engagement and the -national faith pledged, the Legislature could of right withhold the -necessary appropriation? The same observations might, he said, be -applied to every instance where public contracts were formed. The public -faith was pledged, the necessary appropriation must be made to prevent a -violation of it; and if withheld, such violation might justly be charged -on the Legislature. - -Mr. NICHOLAS was for the resolution. It had been urged that the House -were to pass the appropriation bill as a matter of course. He thought -otherwise. The House, in enacting a law, were entitled to consider all -its consequences. - -Mr. GILES adverted to a fact stated by Mr. WILLIAMS, viz: that the cents -are issued from the Mint at a cheaper rate than the price of the copper -itself; so that, if a person chooses to melt down a pound weight of -cents into a lump of copper, and takes this lump back again to the Mint, -he will receive more money for it than what it was worth in cents. Thus -the whole expense of workmanship is cast away. Mr. GILES described the -ridiculous and wasteful effects to be looked for from such a way of -coining money. - -The amendment of Mr. WILLIAMS was agreed to by a very large majority. - -Mr. NICHOLAS moved to strike out some of the subsequent clauses, for -payments to mechanics, for stationery, &c. - -Mr. ISAAC SMITH wanted to know if it was meant to stop the whole -operations of the Mint. - -Mr. PAGE objected to dispersing the workmen, who could not easily be -collected again; at least it would require an immense expense to -re-assemble them. It has been stated, in the course of this discussion, -that _every cent coined in the Mint_ has cost the public TEN; but if the -workmen are to be dispersed, and if at any future time assembled again, -the cents may come to cost _A HUNDRED CENTS_ apiece. Mr. P. recited -various reasons for hoping that the business of the Mint will in future -be conducted with more expedition, economy, and success. He stated the -immense benefit arising to the country from the plenty of copper money, -and especially to the poorer classes of people. A Mint was of more -consequence than gentlemen seemed to think it was. He said that private -mints were reported to be setting up. He wished to refer the amendment -of his colleague from Virginia to the third reading of the bill. By that -time the House would be better informed. - -Mr. NICHOLAS did not wish to abolish, but merely to suspend the -operations of the Mint till nearer the end of the session. This -amendment was negatived. - -The committee rose, the Chairman reported, and the House took up the -bill as reported. - -The House adhered to the amendment of the Committee of the Whole. - -Mr. LIVINGSTON next moved that the whole appropriation for the Mint -should be struck out. - -Mr. MURRAY said, that had the gentleman from New York moved for delay, -for the purpose of introducing a motion to repeal the law which rendered -this appropriation necessary, he would not have troubled the House with -a single remark; but his motion to strike out an appropriation for the -purpose of bringing the policy of the law itself into discussion, -contained a principle in his mind so repugnant to the great Legislative -duties of the House that he would oppose it. The object of the -appropriation is not a temporary one, but a part of the machinery of -our Government, under the express authority of the constitution by law. -The doctrine now contended for by the gentlemen from New York and -Pennsylvania (Mr. LIVINGSTON and Mr. GALLATIN) was that this House have -a discretionary power of appropriating or not. To this doctrine, taken -in the extent which he conceived they contended for, he could not give -his support. On the contrary, he thought that in all cases where an -appropriation flowed from a law to make good a contract, or to erect a -permanent organ in the Government, and from any law whose object was -permanent, the true doctrine was, that it was the duty of the House to -vote an appropriation. A law is the will of a nation. The same powers -only that formed it can repeal it. If it be a constitutional act, no -power can lawfully obstruct its operation or its existence. But -attending to the doctrine maintained to-day, it would follow, that -though this House had not the power of repealing a law made by all the -branches of Government, it may obstruct its operations and render it a -dead letter; though it cannot repeal, it may do what shall amount to a -repeal, which is the assumption of a power almost equal to that of -exclusive legislation. He thought he saw in this an evil of great -extent, and an anarchy of theoretic principles. It appeared to him that -though we originate money bills, we had no right to refuse an -appropriation to existing laws that either secured a debt or any -contract, or that related to objects permanent by the law that created -or acknowledged them, as long as the law itself remained unrepealed. We -had but a share of Legislative power. Where a law relative to such -objects as he had alluded to existed, from which an appropriation -followed, till the law ceased by repeal or by other constitutional -means, it was obligatory upon us as well as upon our constituents, and -the only powers we could exercise of a discretionary sort resolved -themselves either into this mode of making good the appropriation, or of -voting for its repeal. The other branches would then judge of the -propriety of our proceeding; but till they who assisted in its enacting, -judged with us the necessity of doing it away, a duty resulted that we -should give it the energy intended by its enaction. - -Mr. DAYTON conceived the question brought under discussion of too -delicate a nature to be decided at the present time. He, however, -expressed it as his opinion that the power of making appropriations was -intended and ought to be a check on establishments. - -Mr. NICHOLAS conceived the House bound to weigh the merits of every law -when an appropriation was to be passed to carry it into effect, and no -appropriations should obtain the sanction of the House, unless they were -convinced of the propriety of the law. - -Mr. GILES said he did not expect to hear a doctrine so novel broached in -the House as that advanced by the member from Massachusetts, (Mr. -SEDGWICK.) He had declared that he conceived the House could exercise -no discretionary power when about to pass an appropriation bill. - -Mr. SEDGWICK rose to explain. The principle he advocated was, that when -a law was made pledging the public faith, the House had no discretion to -withhold, or not, an appropriation; at least as long as common honesty -was more than a name. - -Mr. GILES said that if this doctrine was admitted in its full latitude, -the House would become a mere office for the registering of edicts. He -contended that the House had a right, by withholding appropriations, to -put an end to an institution without the concurrence of the Senate. He -would not say that the present was a case that called for the exercise -of that right, but they had in all cases of this nature a right to -exercise their discretion. - -Mr. MURRAY considered the laws of the land as depending upon two other -branches of the Government besides this House, and conceived it highly -improper in the House to attempt to obstruct them by withholding -necessary appropriations. What would be the effect of a contrary -doctrine? It must contain the seeds of governmental anarchy. While a law -remained in force it was the duty of the House to do what was needful to -carry it into operation. He made some allusion to the British House of -Commons, who, by privilege, contend for the right of withholding -supplies to be a check on the patronage of the Crown. But such a -principle, he contended, could not apply here; our Government could not -proceed if it were admitted. As long as a law exists, it is the duty of -the House to make the needful appropriations. The whole wisdom of the -Government is not in this House. The same power is required to repeal -laws as to make them. It is true the constitution has given to the House -the more immediate command of the purse-strings; but they were under an -obligation to open them when necessity required. There is a -constitutional way of repealing laws; but the House has no right to -obstruct their operation while in force. A member from Pennsylvania, -(Mr. GALLATIN,) he observed, appeared on a former occasion to coincide -with his opinions on this subject; for he argued that the House was -bound to pass such an appropriation, as a law existed giving the salary -to the officer which it was meant to provide for. - -Mr. GALLATIN said, in answer, that his observation had simply been, that -the Committee of Ways and Means, and not the House, conceived itself -bound to report an appropriation for an item established by law; but he -never doubted the power of the House to pass, or not, an appropriation. -In such cases the line of duty must remain to be drawn by opinion. With -what degree of consistency can the House be called on for a vote if, as -some members contend, they cannot have an opinion? Why are they called -upon to say, yea or nay, if they are obliged to say yea? - -Mr. MURRAY conceded that a member might say yea or nay, but his duty -must in cases of this nature clearly point to one of the two; for he -could not mistake the black and white marks in the court of conscience. -He has the physical power to say yea or nay; but if he does his duty he -must say yea. The contrary principle would go to this, that the House -had a right to refuse an appropriation to pay a just debt. - -Mr. GALLATIN observed, in reply, that each member will be the sole judge -whether it was or was not his duty to say yea, or the contrary. The -constitution, he said, declared that no money should be drawn from the -Treasury but by appropriations made by law: this did not look as if the -voting of appropriations was intended to be merely a matter of form. In -the second place, the constitution declares, that no appropriation for -the support of an armed force shall be made for more than two years. -Thus, though a Military Establishment may be formed by enlistments for -three or more years, yet the constitution provides that the question -shall be submitted to the House every two years; and this surely is not -as a matter of form; but in order, at such short periods, by voting on -an appropriation bill, to determine whether such an establishment should -exist longer or not. He conceived the power which he advocated as -residing in the House of great consequence, and to be used on important -occasions only. - -Mr. NICHOLAS, who had risen at the same time with Mr. GALLATIN, and had -given way to him, observed, that when he first rose, he was going to -read the clause of the constitution which the member last up had -referred to. As to the black and white marks the member from Maryland -spoke of, they were differently placed in different persons; in matters -of opinion men will differ; but the constitution is a guide not to be -departed from. The power of appropriation was vested by that instrument -chiefly in the House, and no power on earth would prevent his exercising -his discretion when that power was to be put in activity. - -Mr. GILES observed, that the member from Maryland had got into the -doctrine of checks, and seemed to think that if the House exercised its -constitutional check it would produce governmental anarchy. - -Mr. MURRAY explained. He had alluded to the mode of getting rid of an -establishment by refusing appropriations to carry it into effect. The -constitutional mode of procuring the repeal of the law should always be -had recourse to; but he insisted that the House could not, as they were -bound by their duty, obstruct a law in force by refusing an -appropriation. - -Mr. GILES conceived that the checks provided by the constitution might -be used by each of the powers of government to their full extent, -limited in every particular case only by their own discretion. If the -harmony of the branches was to be made an argument to prevent the -exercise of checks, what, he asked, became of the checks provided by the -constitution? Each branch of the government (if he understood what was -meant by constitutional checks) was to exercise its own opinions and -use its discretions within constitutional limits, without a reference to -the opinions of other branches. He next adverted to the powers of -appropriation, which he contended were in a greater degree vested in the -immediate representatives of the people, to be a wholesome check. In -case of an army establishment, for example, suppose the PRESIDENT or -Senate were to refuse their assent to the repeal of a law establishing -it? Will it be said that the clause of the constitution empowering the -House to make a biennial appropriation for the object, does not vest in -them a discretionary power in such instances of overturning the -establishment by its own will? for it cannot be kept up without an -appropriation. Is the House to be told that, for the sake of harmony, -they must give up their own powers and opinions? He maintained that, in -cases of appropriations, they had a discretionary power, to be -exercised, as in all cases, discretionarily. Was one branch to be judges -of discretion for another? No; each should judge for itself. - -Mr. MURRAY said, it was known to every one that an appropriation for the -support of a military establishment could not be made for a longer term -than two years; but that case was widely different from the present. It -was known that, by the constitution, a military appropriation cannot -exist more than two years; but the doctrine he supported was in cases of -debt or obligation under a law; and, in such cases, he still contended -that, though the House had the physical power to refuse an appropriation -to satisfy a claim thus founded, they had not the right. - -Here the debate was interrupted by a motion for adjournment; which was -carried, and the House adjourned. - - -WEDNESDAY, January 20. - -_Appropriations for 1796._ - -The amendments from the committee being thus gone through, the bill was -ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.[66] - - -SATURDAY, January 30. - -_Stenographer to the House._ - -The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the report from the -stenographical committee. The report was read. - -Mr. SWANWICK: then rose for the sake of asking information. He inquired -whether the House were to sanction and authorize the reports of the -proposed stenographer? He had very considerable apprehensions about the -propriety of entering into the subject in any mode. - -Mr. W. SMITH replied, that the gentleman engaged by the committee had -undertaken to have his reports ready for Mr. Brown, printer of the -Philadelphia Gazette, in the morning of the succeeding day. - -Mr. SWANWICK rose again. He observed, that to give universal -satisfaction was impracticable. So many gentlemen were to be satisfied, -that it never could be accomplished. He observed that one of the -principal causes of complaint against reporters was of a nature that did -not admit a remedy. Gentlemen rose, in the ardor of discussion, and -suffered many remarks to escape from them, which, neither in thought nor -expression, were perfectly correct. If the reporter, as was his duty, -took them down, and stated them exactly, gentlemen were irritated by -seeing themselves exhibited in this shape, and then blame was cast on -the reporter. Every degree of praise was due to the editor of a -Philadelphia daily newspaper, whom Mr. S. named, and who had not only -done every thing in his power to obtain the debates of the House at full -length, but had frequently advertised, that if errors were committed by -his reporter, they should, on application, be instantly rectified. More -than this it was impossible to desire, for no mode of conduct could be -more liberal or candid. But Mr. S. did not see the propriety of blending -the House of Representatives and the editor of a newspaper in this -business. The stenographer is to be called an officer of the House, -while he receives eleven hundred dollars from the printer of a -Philadelphia newspaper. He is thus also the officer of the printer, as -well as ours. If we give the gentleman the proposed salary, we are to -depend on him alone, whereas at present we have different reporters, and -two or three of them frequently and mutually both corroborate and -correct each other. What has escaped one reporter, or what he has -misunderstood, is often observed by his competitor. The error is -amended, or the defect supplied. Mr. S. farther observed, that as far as -he had read or heard of, such an institution as the one now proposed, -was never known under any Government, or in any country, that had -hitherto existed. [It was observed, in some part of the debate, that an -attempt of this kind was once made by the National Assembly of France.] -Mr. S. expressed himself warmly against Government making any -composition of the nature now proposed with a printer, and against any -attempt for giving one newspaper an advantage over another, by any -preference as to the copy. If Mr. S. wanted any person to be sure of -dismission and disgrace, he could not name any other situation where -that dismission and disgrace were so absolutely certain, as to a person -accepting the proposed office of stenographer. If he did his duty, -gentlemen would frequently not like to see their speeches exactly as -delivered. If he altered them, his utility was at an end. It would -therefore be much better to let the gentleman stay at his own business. - -Mr. GILES objected particularly to the opposition made in this late -stage of the business. He admitted that it was a delicate step, but he -complained in strong terms of the inaccuracy of the reports now given. -He observed that the object was not merely to find a stenographer who -would satisfy the members of that House, but who would also give -satisfactory information to the public at large. - -Mr. SHERBURNE agreed with the gentleman last up, that the object of the -resolution could not be merely to give satisfaction to members, but -information to the public; though if it was important that the public -should be informed of what was said in that House, the proposed -resolution would be inadequate to its objects. But he conceived it more -important for the public to be informed of what was done, and that, he -observed, was not always to be inferred from what was said; as (the mind -being always open to conviction) it had not been unusual in a former--he -would not say the present--House, for gentlemen to argue one way, and -vote another. As therefore, no certain inferences of the conduct of -members would be drawn from their speeches, and as the public were more -interested in their actions than their sayings, (a knowledge of which -the present resolution was not, in his opinion, calculated to promote,) -it would not meet his concurrence. But, Mr. S. further observed, that if -the speech was to be considered as the infallible _inditium_ of the -subsequent conduct, as the avowed object of the resolution was to -diffuse, through the various parts of the States a knowledge of that -conduct, he should oppose it from a conviction that the means were not -competent to the end. The resolution proposed a publication of the -debates in a daily Philadelphia paper. These debates would necessarily -be so voluminous as to engross the greater part of such a publication. -Except in Philadelphia, New York, and one or two other large cities, -there were no daily papers; in all other places, they were not published -oftener than once, or, at most, twice, a week. The daily papers, in -comparison with others, were few. If, therefore, a daily paper was -engrossed by a detail of the debates, when would the public arrive at a -knowledge of them through the more common medium of a weekly paper? The -inhabitants of this, and a few other large towns, might be gratified, -perhaps benefited, by a speedy perusal of them; but when would the -citizens of more distant parts of the Union, through their usual weekly -channels, be indulged with the like opportunities? The difference would -be as one to six; and what the inhabitants of Philadelphia might become -acquainted with in one year, the people of New England and Georgia would -not be informed of in six years, unless they relinquished their own -weekly publications for a Philadelphia paper. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, that he would candidly confess that the House had put -itself in a delicate situation on this subject; yet if, on the whole, -gentlemen be of opinion that the measure was improper, it ought not, by -reason of any antecedent conduct, to be now further pursued to the -public detriment. It was also but just to say, that if the measure was -proper, a more competent and more impartial agent than the one proposed -could not be obtained. He said that the printers had much merit from -their endeavors to communicate to the public the debates of the House, -yet it must be allowed that their endeavors had been too unsuccessful; -that, in consequence, much injury had been done, not only to the -characters of gentlemen as men of talents, but also in some instances, -to the motives which had produced public measures. These were evils to -which a remedy should be applied, if it did not involve those which -would be more injurious. It ought to be remembered that the man -appointed would be an officer of the House, responsible to it for his -fidelity and accuracy. The debates would then be published under -authority of the House, and it of consequence was responsible for his -precise execution of the trust. It was impossible to conceive that at -some times, with the best intention, he should not mistake, and of -course misrepresent. The member in such a situation, would feel the -injury, but redress would be obtained only by the interposition of the -House. This would afford ground for numerous appeals, and endless -litigation; and, in the end, might be ruinous to many valuable and -respectable characters. It was of importance that no constraint should -exist which would prevent gentlemen from expressing freely and without -fear their own feelings and opinions and those of their constituents. -How far the fear of misrepresentation, and the difficulty of correcting -it, under such a system, would produce such an effect, gentlemen he -hoped would consider before they assented to this proposition. - -There was one other consideration, which had great weight on the mind. -Whatever opinion we might entertain on the subject at present, all would -remember the powerful influence of party and faction, and their intimate -connection with free governments. From hence it might be easy to -conceive, that hereafter this might be rendered the most powerful engine -of an unprincipled majority, to overawe and to prostrate and destroy a -virtuous minority. For no character was so established as to withstand -for any length of time constant misrepresentation supported by the -authority of the House of Representatives. - -Mr. HARPER rose in reply to Mr. SEDGWICK, who, immediately after he -began speaking, observed that the gentleman had mistaken his meaning. -Mr. H. said that he perfectly understood the member, and proceeded to -recommend the object of the report. He gave credit to the present -reporters for diligence and good intention, but thought them far -inferior to what might be done. Great attainments had been made, he -admitted, but more might be done. He thought it of the highest -consequence that the speeches of members should be correctly published -and disseminated among the people. As to the sum now proposed, a London -newspaper would give, he had no doubt, five thousand dollars a year for -such a reporter. He questioned not that Woodfall would receive ten -thousand pounds a year from the printer for his reports. It had been -objected that daily papers alone could hold such debates; but weekly and -semi-weekly papers could select the most interesting passages of them -from the daily papers. Mr. H. recommended either that this report or a -similar one should be adopted, or that the business of reporting should -at once be put to an end. He spoke of _atrocious_ mistakes. The debates, -as now published, held up the House to the scorn of the world. He would -rather have the doors shut up altogether. He would, if the present -resolution was rejected, make a motion to that effect. He was sorry to -learn that the debates had been collected into a book, entitled "The -Political Register," of which he doubted not that immense numbers would -be sent to Europe, and this book he reprobated in the strongest terms. - -Mr. SEDGWICK observed, if gentlemen were misrepresented, in one of the -newspapers, where debates were reported, the editor of that paper had -advertised that he was ready to publish any corrections which might be -offered. This notice had been long and frequently given, and gentlemen -had it in their power to do themselves justice. - -The first resolution in the report was then read, and the question going -to be put, when - -Mr. BALDWIN said, that the more the House advanced into this affair, the -greater was the number of difficulties which occurred. The resolutions -had the less weight with him because they were hurried through at the -close of last session. The institution was unprecedented in any other -Government. He knew that members might be misrepresented, but this -scheme would not cure the evil. He repeatedly declared, that on all -great questions, where talents found an object worth exertion, the -debates in that House were very well represented. He had seen many -speeches, sketched by printers in this city, that he would not wish to -see better done. He did not know of any recent or particular complaints -about inaccuracy. We have now been in session for seven or eight weeks, -and there has not occurred much interesting matter, to make any -remarkable debate out of He said that the debates, if taken at full -length, would far exceed the limits of any newspaper. As to the expense -of printing, that of the laws of this session would cost twenty thousand -dollars, and he conjectured that to print the speeches, would require a -hundred thousand dollars; and even after they were printed, it would be -necessary to pay people for being at the trouble to read them, for -otherwise nobody would go through a perusal of every word spoken in the -House. - -Mr. NICHOLAS said, that the reports at present published were full of -notorious falsehoods, and the characters of members with their -constituents would have been sunk, if it had not been known that this -kind of things deserved no credit. He was in favor of the report. He -complained that even when pieces were sent to the printers, they were -embodied in the sketch, by Which means the reporter got the full credit -of them, which had pernicious consequences. One of his objections to the -present mode of reporting was, that the speeches of members were often -much improved. He mentioned an instance from his own experience. A -speech was once made for him by a person who reports in this House, and -who has a very good style of writing. The style, said Mr. N., was above -mine. There was not a sentiment in it which I would have disavowed. It -was a better speech than mine; but, in an entire column, there was -nothing that I said. As for sending corrections to the printers, Mr. N. -was above it. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE was against the report. The loss of four thousand dollars -would be a much greater harm to the public than any injury arising from -inaccurate reports. He did not see that the characters of members with -their constituents depended on these publications. - -Mr. SWANWICK.--The gentleman from Virginia last up has suggested that -the House have somehow committed themselves to appoint a stenographer, -by their previous resolution on this subject; but that resolution goes -only to the committee receiving proposals. It therefore remains with -this House whether to accept them or not when made. As to the gentleman -who is the subject of the resolution, if I have more strenuously than -usual opposed the motion, it is from a desire to keep him from quitting -the lucrative situation he is said to find himself in, to embark on the -stormy sea he is contemplating. To be the organ of the members of this -House to their constituents is indeed a very delicate task; one for -which, considering the danger he might be in of an Orpheus's fate--that -of being torn to pieces--the salary is but a poor compensation. He is to -do justice to the eloquence of some members; he is to clothe in an -elegant dress the uncouth, yet well-meaning expressions of others; but -what will he do with the silent members, who never speak at all? What -will their constituents think of them? Indeed, sir, if he has the idea I -have formed of his danger, he will not undertake it at all. Faction and -party have been mentioned: happy stenographer, if he can keep clear of -these! If he fall into their power, insensibly he will represent one -side in clouds and darkness, the other as ornamented with the brightest -beams of light. How will he please both? Misrepresentation is complained -of: alas, sir, how quick is error--how slow is the progress of truth in -almost all things! Our stenographer must indeed be a wonder-working man, -if he can revert this tide, and make every where light and correct -reasoning prevail. The best mode of informing our constituents is, by -the yeas and nays on our acts; this truly shows, as a gentleman from new -Hampshire has observed, our doings, which are much more interesting to -them than our abstract reasonings; these our constituents will easily -form to themselves ideas of, when they know our votes; as the celebrated -Dr. Johnson is said to have written speeches for members of Parliament -whose general political sentiments he knew; by knowing these he applied -arguments pretty accurately, as he supposed them to bear on every -question offered. But, it has been observed, if we do not agree to have -an official stenographer, a motion will be made to clear the House of -those who now take down debates. These persons are tolerated only on the -principle that our galleries are open. Woodfall, a celebrated printer, -took down debates from memory: could we prevent this being done here? Or -should we drive all printers from us who take notes, for the -inaccuracies of some? I hope not. The liberty of the press has great -title to respect. How can we agree by a miscellaneous union, the most -strange, to commute with Mr. Brown, the printer, the salary of four -thousand dollars, so as to possess him first of the proof-sheets, -without supposing other printers will become rivals of this business, -and complain if they are thwarted in an equal pursuit of their own -livelihood? The best way is, to leave this business, like others, to -regulate itself. Mr. Brown, by his labor in this way, has already widely -extended the circulation of his paper--evident in his present -overture--and, by the by, this is no mean proof of correctness on the -whole in his success; he or others will still go on to improve the -business, if left to themselves. If he or they fall into errors, they -are their own. Members may correct them, or write their own speeches -out, if they please. But what has the House to do with this; or why -should it become the censor and promulgator of the speeches of its own -members? Our time is wasted often, already, by too many long discussions -on unimportant objects; but what would it be if we were to be every -morning saluted with motions to correct the performances of the -stenographers of the preceding day? All the advantage of the motion is -to obtain more accuracy; but, it is said, the House means not to pledge -itself for this accuracy: if so, why employ an officer under its -authority for this purpose? On the whole, sir, we shall in vain seek to -escape abuse and misrepresentation; these are by far too much in vogue. -All the consolation left is, what I usually apply in such cases--that -is, the consciousness of not deserving them. - -Mr. GILBERT was against the report. He thought the publication of the -laws and the yeas and nays, a sufficient means to communicate the -proceedings of the House. - -Mr. WM. LYMAN said that the debates in one of the newspapers (he either -named or plainly alluded to the Philadelphia Gazette) had, for the two -last sessions, been altogether exceptionable. He was sorry to learn, -that these debates had been collected by a person who comes here, so -that they would now, perhaps, descend to posterity. If they were as -incorrect in the volume (the Political Register) as they were in the -newspaper, they were a libel on that House, and would disgrace it with -the world. If this resolution was rejected, it would be advisable to -send all the printers to the gallery. - -Mr. KITCHELL was entirely against the object of the report. - -Mr. GILES said, that he might have taken up wrong impressions, but he -thought the matter worth trying. It was a thing of experiment, by which -he believed that the printer would make money. He acknowledged that, for -some time past, several of the reports had been pretty correct. It is -better to let them go out as they are, than to stop them altogether. He -would not wish to press the motion, if it was to meet with opposition -from several gentlemen who had this day spoken against it. He moved that -the committee should rise, and the further consideration of the report -be deferred till Monday. - -Mr. W. SMITH said, it was admitted on all sides, that it was highly -important for the people to receive the most accurate information of the -proceedings of the House, and that the debates were, in general, -extremely misrepresented. Was it not, then, the duty of the House to -remedy this evil, and to adopt such measures as would transmit to the -people in every part of the United States the most accurate information -of the conduct of their Representatives? The House had now an -opportunity of obtaining the services of a gentleman peculiarly -distinguished for the rare talent of reporting with accuracy public -debates; the compensation which would be adequate to such useful and -laborious service, was beyond the ability of any printer; the House -ought therefore to contribute towards it; the sum required was a trifle, -when compared with the advantages; it was no object. The only question, -then, was, whether the stenographer ought to be an officer of the House; -in that capacity he certainly would be more easily restrained from the -commission of any wilful misrepresentation. Mr. S. did not feel the -force of the objections against the report. It had been said that, -although the members were now misrepresented, yet, they had it in their -power to publish corrections; but these corrections were often -overlooked, while the misrepresentation was operating very injuriously -to the character of the member; this was generally the case in places -remote from the seat of Government; the mangled account of a debate was -republished in a distant paper, and the correction, if it reached the -distant printer, was generally disregarded. Among the opponents to this -report, Mr. S. said he was surprised to find the gentleman who -represented this city, (Mr. SWANWICK,) who, more than any other member, -should have withdrawn his opposition to the measure proposed; that -gentleman's constituents had it in their power, at any time, to hear the -debates of Congress; they were on the spot; ought he not, then, in -candor, to assist in facilitating to the remote citizens the means of -obtaining the best knowledge of the proceedings, and the most correct -statement of the discussions of the House? Ought they, from their -remoteness, to be kept in the dark, or to be furnished with such light -as would only mislead? Had they not a claim on the House to adopt such -means as would enable the citizens in every State to judge of the -propriety of public measures? The member from this city had another -exclusive advantage; if misrepresented, he could correct the error, and -the correction would be read; that was not the case with the members -from the remoter States, whose reputation might be injured by -misrepresentation, without a similar advantage: the member from this -city was in the midst of his constituents; he had daily opportunities of -setting right any misstatement by personal explanation. - -Mr. SMITH said, he did not agree with some gentlemen, that it was -sufficient for the people to know what laws were passed, without knowing -the previous discussions; he thought, on the contrary, the favorable or -unfavorable impression of a law on the public mind, would depend, in a -great degree, on the reasons assigned for and against it in debate, and -the people ought to know those reasons. When a law passes, imposing a -tax, would not the people be reconciled if they saw, from the -discussions of the House, that such tax was unavoidable, and that the -particular mode of taxation was the best which could be devised? And -ought this information to depend entirely on the caprice or convenience -of the reporters, who attended when it pleased them, and who published -just as much of the debate as they found leisure or patience to -accomplish? Mr. S. said he was convinced that the errors which had -excited so much complaint, were not the effect of design, but merely of -inadequacy to the task. Very few were competent to such a business, -which required peculiar skill in stenography, very laborious -application, and a clear comprehension of the subject-matter of debate. -It could not be expected that persons thus qualified would devote their -whole time to this business, without an ample reward. The report was -objected to because there was novelty in the plan; it was true the House -of Commons of England had no such officer, but their practice was not a -fit precedent for us on this occasion, for they admitted no person to -write down, in the House, their proceedings; their debates were taken -from memory. This House, on the contrary, had, from its first -institution, facilitated, by every accommodation, the reporting their -proceedings. The thing was not altogether, however, without precedent. -During the existence of the National Assembly of France, there were -officers of the House who composed a daily work called the Logography, -which was an exact account of the debates of that body. It had been -asked, what control the House were to have over this officer? He -answered that the stenographer would be liable to be censured or -displaced, if he should be guilty of wilful misrepresentation. It would -be always easy to discriminate between a casual inadvertence and a -criminal misstatement; the officer's character and talents, his -responsibility to the House, and his oath to report with impartiality, -would be a sufficient pledge of his accuracy. Mr. S. seriously believed -that the character of the House had suffered from the erroneous -statements which had gone abroad. He wished to guard against this evil -in future; he was willing, for himself, that every syllable he uttered -within those walls should be carried to every part of the Union, but he -deprecated misrepresentation. He was anxious that the truth should be -known in relation to every act of the Government; for he was as -satisfied that the affection and confidence of the people in this -Government would increase with the promulgation of truth, as that -whatever it had lost of that affection and confidence, was owing -altogether to the propagation of detraction and calumny. It was under -these impressions that he had originally brought forward the proposition -and that he now recommended the report, and having heard no reasons to -change his sentiments of the expediency of the measure, he should -persist in supporting it. - -The motion by Mr. GILES was agreed to. The committee rose, and, a few -minutes after, the House adjourned to Monday. - - -MONDAY, February 1. - -_Indian Trading Houses._ - -The engrossed bill for establishing trading houses for the Indian tribes -was taken into consideration. The first blank was for the gross sum to -be appropriated for the general objects of the bill. It was moved to -fill this blank with $150,000. - -Mr. WILLIAMS spoke in favor of the bill. - -Mr. PARKER supported the general provision of the bill, and urged the -necessity of an immediate attention to the subject. He calculated on a -surplus in the appropriation for the War Department to provide for this -object. - -Mr. HARPER moved that the bill should be recommitted. He then entered -into a general consideration of the principles of the bill, which he -reprobated altogether. Alluding to the general objects of commerce, he -said that public bodies never manage these matters without loss. He -adverted to the repairs of roads, construction of canals, &c.; all these -objects prosper under private individual direction, but when entered -into by public bodies nothing is ever brought to perfection, and the -public money is lost. He applied these ideas to the plan of the bill. -Persons at fifteen hundred or two thousand miles distance, are to be -intrusted with public property to a large amount. It is not in human -wisdom to guard against frauds and impositions; no check or control can -be devised which will be found adequate to repressing private rapacity. -Mr. H., therefore, wished the bill recommitted, for the purpose of an -entire new modification. If the motion should obtain, he should then -move a resolution providing for a loan to individuals for the purpose. - -Mr. SWANWICK supported the general principle of the bill, and reprobated -the idea of loans to individuals; he considered such a plan as one of -the worst kind of sinking funds. The plan is an experiment; it is not, -perhaps, possible to predict what will be the result; but the object is -worth the trial and worthy the attention of the Legislature. He -considered the objections against the plan of the bill as applying with -greater force against the proposed substitute. - -Mr. S. SMITH said, when the gentleman from South Carolina made his -motion for a recommitment, he had supposed he would have accompanied the -motion with some reasons; but since he had heard what he offered as -reasons, he found himself confirmed in his opinion of the inexpediency -of his motion. Mr. S. said, the only reason for the commitment was, that -the principle of the bill might be changed, by individuals being -substituted for the Government, that is, by loaning the money to private -persons for the purposes of the trade. He was entirely opposed to this -principle. Public debtors are the worst kind of citizens. These persons, -after having expended or lost the money, will be coming forward with -their petitions to be released from their bonds. He did not wish to -increase the business of the Committee of Claims. - -Mr. SWIFT enlarged on the idea suggested by Mr. HARPER. He thought it -infinitely preferable to leave the business to the enterprise and -resources of individuals. - -Mr. HARPER rose in reply to Mr. SMITH. He entered into a further -consideration and defence of the plan he had proposed as a substitute. - -Mr. DEARBORN objected to Mr. HARPER's idea; he saw no sufficient reason -to support the preference that gentleman gave to a loan to individuals. -He was in favor of the general principle of the bill; he thought it -economical to appropriate money for the object of cultivating good -understanding and harmony with the Indians, but should vote for the bill -only on the condition of a reduction of the Military Establishment. - -Mr. GILES entered more largely into a consideration of the principle of -the bill. He had no opinion of governmental bargains--he believed they -always turned out losing bargains.[67] The clause which provides that -the original stock shall not be diminished, he conceived, would operate -against the general object of the bill, if adhered to; but this he did -not contemplate; he supposed that it would terminate in an annual -provision. Mr. G. alluded to the PRESIDENT's Speech, a clause of which -had been recited; he did not consider that, or a former recommendation -of this matter, as binding on the House. If the PRESIDENT's Speech is -considered as the political Bible of the Government, the case is -different; but he presumed no person was disposed to assert this. He -considered the House as perfectly free to adopt or reject the -proposition. With respect to the effects of the measure, gentlemen had -differed in their predictions. Predictions which were the nearest to the -effects produced, may be considered as the result of the greater -political sagacity. He would venture to predict that the whole sum -proposed to be appropriated would be sunk in three years. With respect -to the fund contemplated from the surplus of the War Department -appropriation, he considered it as altogether illusory; there is no such -surplus, none had heretofore been found, and he presumed none ever -would. For though the number of troops voted had never been raised, yet -the whole of the money appropriated was always expended. - -Some further remarks were made by several members, and then the motion -for recommitting the bill being put, was lost--52 to 34. - -Mr. SWIFT then renewed his motion for a postponement. This, after a few -remarks from that gentleman, and a short reply from Mr. GILBERT, in -support of the bill, was negatived. - -The motion for filling the blank with $150,000, was then put and agreed -to, fifty-six members rising in the affirmative. - -On reading the section in which the blank for the penalty is included, -Mr. VENABLE moved for a partial recommitment of the bill, for the -purpose of new-modifying the section. This motion gave rise to a variety -of observations, in the course of which the motion was extended to a -general commitment. This motion being put, was lost. - -The motion then was, to recommit the second, fourth, and sixth sections. -The second section was recommitted. The fourth section provides that the -capital stock of the United States embarked in this business shall not -be diminished. Mr. VENABLE's object was to have the section so modified -as to blend the interest of the individual who is to conduct the -business with that of the public. Mr. S. SMITH said the motion went to -destroy the bill, for no person would engage in the business on such a -plan. The motion for committing the fourth section was lost. The sixth -section assigns the sum of $150,000 to be appropriated for the general -objects of the bill. The motion to recommit this section was negatived. - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -second section, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair. - -Mr. VENABLE moved that the section should be altered to read, that the -agent should give bonds to the amount in value of the goods committed to -his charge. - -Mr. J. SMITH supposed that the sum should be sufficient to cover the -amount of the goods which may at any time be found in the hands of the -agents; from ten to fifteen or twenty thousand dollars, he supposed, -might be sufficient for this purpose. - -Mr. DEARBORN suggested the idea of leaving this part of the business to -the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He moved to amend the clause -accordingly. - -Mr. VENABLE's motion was lost. Mr. DEARBORN's motion was agreed to. - -The committee then rose, and the Chairman reported the amendment, which -was adopted by the House. It was then ordered that the bill be again -engrossed and read the third time to-day. - -[The bill was subsequently read a third time and passed--58 members -rising in the affirmative.] - - -TUESDAY, February 2. - -The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES: - - _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of - Representatives:_ - - I transmit herewith the copy of a letter, dated the 19th of - December last, from Governor Blount to the Secretary of - War, stating the avowed and daring designs of certain - persons to take possession of lands belonging to the - Cherokees, and which the United States have, by treaty, - solemnly guaranteed to that nation. The injustice of such - intrusions, and the mischievous consequences which must - necessarily result therefrom, demand that effectual - provision be made to prevent them. - - G. WASHINGTON. - - UNITED STATES, _February_ 2, 1796. - -The said Message and letter were read, and ordered to be referred to the -Committee of the whole House, to whom is committed the bill to regulate -trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on -the frontiers. - - -WEDNESDAY, February 3. - -LEMUEL BENTON, from South Carolina, appeared, was qualified, and took -his seat. - - -MONDAY, February 8. - -_Compensation of Members._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for -allowing a compensation to the members of both Houses, which proposes an -annual salary of one thousand dollars to each member, instead of six -dollars per day. - -Mr. GILES moved that the word "annually" be expunged from the bill. He -thought the present mode of compensating the members of the Legislature -a good one, and could not conceive why an alteration should be made. -Such a mode of payment as was now proposed ought to be sanctioned only -upon the maturest deliberation. - -Mr. GOODHUE explained the reasons which induced the committee to propose -an annual instead of a daily payment to members, which was, that members -might be induced to greater despatch in business, and to do away an idea -which had gone abroad amongst many people, that, being paid by the day, -the members of that House protracted their session to an unreasonable -length. - -Mr. GILES thought there ought to be no pecuniary inducement to members -to push forward business in too rapid a manner, or to shorten their -sessions. An annual salary would doubtless have this effect, and -business, in consequence, would most certainly be neglected. It would be -an evil of the greatest importance; it would be a constant temptation to -members to neglect their duty; it would tend to embarrass all their -deliberations. Indeed, it was a perfectly new mode of requiting -Representatives, and would be supposed to be introduced for the purpose -of advancing their pay--an idea which he did not wish to prevail, as he -thought the present allowance sufficient. He therefore hoped the -principle would not be agreed to. - -Mr. SWANWICK was against the bill, and said, that to pay members in the -way proposed would be to offer them a bounty to neglect the business of -the Legislature. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE was in favor of the bill. He said, that the constitution -had provided that Congress should meet once a year, and that more time -was spent during their sitting than was taken up by the Circuits of the -Judges. Yet the Judges had a salary allowed them, and it was not found -to have any bad effect. Complaints are now made out of doors that their -sessions are protracted for the sake of the daily allowance paid to -them. Persons who said this, said he, do not know that we are all the -time deeply engaged in business, which is much lengthened by clashing -interests of different States. A yearly salary would do away this idea, -without making any real difference in the amount paid by the Treasury -for their services. If he thought the mode of payment would cause -members to neglect their duty, as has been observed, he too would be -against the adoption of it; but surely it cannot be supposed that -members would not sit as long as business should require them. He -observed, they had now been in session two months, and but very little -important business had been done. He thought the mode proposed would -tend to remedy this evil: it was an experiment at least worth trying. - -Mr. FINDLAY did not object to the bill merely as a novelty, but because -it offered no advantage. Many persons, no doubt, would think one -thousand dollars a year too much; but he believed it best for members to -do their duty, without regarding the misapprehensions and prejudices of -they know not whom. He did not think the pay of members influenced their -sittings. The greatest difficulty, towards the close of the session, was -to keep members together. If, indeed, members would attend better at the -beginning of a session, and take up less time in speaking, sessions -might be shorter; but there must, however, be full liberty given to -every member to express his sentiments in his own way. No law can -regulate people's conceptions. He thought it best that the members -should be paid by the day. He should never boast of passing laws in a -short time, but of passing good laws. - -Mr. NICHOLAS was in favor of the present mode of compensating members, -as the period of their sessions was uncertain, and wherever salaries -were paid, they were for certain business. Give members one thousand -dollars, and he did not doubt but some of them would wish to return home -sooner than if they had been paid in proportion to the time spent in -business. Water, though insensibly, wears away stones; and such an -influence, he feared, would have a tendency to undermine the integrity -of members. It was better to be slow than too hasty in business. He -hoped this bill would not pass as an experiment, for the effect must be -corruption; and when once this enemy of all governments is suffered to -take root, it is difficult to eradicate it. Indeed, this bill would be -supposed by many as a cover to advance the pay of members. If there were -any such view, he wished members to propose the measure openly. He -thought the present pay too much, and if the people thought it -influenced the length of their sittings, they were of the same opinion. - -Mr. WILLIAMS was against the bill, though he believed it to be brought -in by the committee from the best of motives. It was their opinion it -would shorten the sessions, and, if carried into effect, it might do so. -If our wages were lowered, the measure would shorten our sessions. Every -penny beyond expenses is too much: a medium salary was desirable. If the -pay of members was increased, officers of Government will do the same. -At present, it was true, all the necessaries of life were at a high -price; but when the war in Europe ceases, the case will be different. -Whenever we adjourn our sessions, (said he,) much business is -necessarily left unfinished; and if members were paid by the year -instead of by the day, all those whose business was not completed would -be ready to say that members were hastened away to enjoy their salary at -home. - -Mr. SEDGWICK did not think the business before the House important. He -was inclined, however, to favor the bill, not that he would grant a -larger amount in that way than the amount of the present allowance per -day. The argument of novelty, he said, would not apply: we are in the -business of experiment. He would observe a fact well known, that every -member in the House was deprived of the opportunity of pursuing his -occupations at home, and of the emoluments arising therefrom, by his -attendance to public business. He did not believe a yearly allowance -would shorten the sessions, but it would remove the charge brought -against members of protracting the sessions for the sake of their pay. -Whether it is necessary to increase or diminish the present pay is not -the question. - -Mr. LIVINGSTON expected stronger motives for the bill than he had heard. -It is acknowledged a perfect novelty. This, though by no means decisive, -is an objection against the measure, and there is nothing else to -recommend it. It has, indeed, been said, it will shorten our sessions; -but would this be a benefit? If to continue in session be an evil, why -are we here? If it could have been proved that expense would have been -saved by the measure, that would have been a real advantage; but this -has not been hinted at. It has, indeed, been said, it will remove from -our constituents a suspicion that we are living here too long. It has -been said, that an idea has gone abroad that we receive six dollars a -day through the year. Few, he believed, were so ill informed; but this -bill, if passed, will cause much more discontent than the present pay -occasions. Deliberation in a Legislative body is necessary. The dearest -interests of the people, he said, were committed to their charge, and he -trusted they would watch over them, and never suffer them to be injured; -and then, it was his opinion their constituents would not think much of -their pay. - -Mr. BALDWIN said, that it was a disagreeable business to be employed in -discussing the subject of paying themselves for their services: it would -be a desirable thing to supersede the necessity of doing so. The -committee doubtless thought one thousand per annum would be an -improvement upon the present mode of paying members, but he could not -think so. He thought it best that the allowance should be paid in the -old way. - -Mr. GILBERT was willing to try the experiment of the bill proposed. He -did not believe that either the present daily allowance lengthened, or -that an annual salary would shorten, the sessions. He thought to say the -contrary was a base insinuation. - -Mr. BOURNE never heard it was the wish of their constituents that their -payment should be annual instead of per day. He had heard it complained -that their pay was too high; but now, since the price of living is so -much advanced, he believed the people were satisfied. He saw no -advantages from the proposed change. It cannot be thought that the pay -is an inducement to members to prolong their sessions: he had not heard -such a complaint. He was in favor of striking out the word "annually," -and for recommitting the bill. - -Mr. MADISON observed, that the present bill proposed no alteration with -respect to the amount of money to be drawn from the Treasury, and it can -make but little difference to members. What had been mentioned as the -advantages of this bill, in his opinion, would operate against it. A -novelty, he said, always called for hesitation. - -Mr. SWANWICK thought, if they enacted good laws--laws that should -encourage agriculture and commerce--their constituents would not trouble -themselves about their salary. - -Mr. GILES rose to remark upon an expression which fell from Mr. GILBERT, -viz: that, to say members were likely to be influenced by the proposed -salary, was a vile insinuation. He declared that it was a recommendation -of the bill in the committee, that it would tend to shorten their -sessions. - -Mr. GILBERT explained, and justified the expression. - -The motion for striking out the word "annually" was called for, and -passed.[68] - - -TUESDAY, February 9. - -FISHER AMES, of Massachusetts, appeared, was qualified, and took his -seat. - - -THURSDAY, February 11. - -_Post Roads from Maine to Georgia._ - -Mr. MADISON moved that the resolution laid upon the table some days ago -be taken up, relative to the survey of the post roads between the -province of Maine and Georgia; which, being read, he observed that two -good effects would arise from carrying this resolution into effect; the -shortest route from one place to another would be determined upon, and -persons, having a certainty of the stability of the roads, would not -hesitate to make improvements upon them. - -Mr. BALDWIN was glad to see this business brought forward; the sooner it -could be carried into effect, the better. In many parts of the country, -he said, there were no improved roads, nothing better than the original -Indian track. Bridges and other improvements are always made with -reluctance whilst roads remain in this state, because it is known as the -country increases in population and wealth, better and shorter roads -will be made. All expense of this sort, indeed, is lost. It was properly -the business of the General Government, he said, to undertake the -improvement of the roads, for the different States are incompetent to -the business, their different designs clashing with each other. It is -enough for them to make good roads to the different seaports; the cross -roads should be left to the government of the whole. The expense, he -thought, would not be very great. Let a surveyor point out the shortest -and best track, and the money will soon be raised. There was nothing in -this country, he said, of which we ought to be more ashamed than our -public roads. - -Mr. BOURNE thought very valuable effects would arise from the carrying -of this resolution into effect. The present roads may be much shortened. -The Eastern States had made great improvements in their roads, and he -trusted the best effects would arise from having regular mails from one -end of the Union to the other. - -Mr. WILLIAMS did not think it right for the revenues of the Post Office -to be applied to this end. He acknowledged the propriety of extending -the post roads to every part of the Union; he thought the House had -better wait for the report of the committee to which business relative -to the Post Office had been referred, which was preparing to be laid -before the House. - -Mr. MADISON explained the nature and object of the resolution. He said -it was the commencement of an extensive work. He wished not to extend it -at present. The expense of the survey would be great. The Post Officer, -he believed, would have no objection to the intended regulation. - -After some observations from Mr. THATCHER, on the obtaining of the -shortest distance from one place to another, and the comparing old with -new roads, so as to come at the shortest and best, the resolution was -agreed to, as follows: - -_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to report a bill authorizing -the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to cause to be examined, and, where -necessary, to be surveyed, the general route most proper for the -transportation of the mail between ----, in Maine, and ----, in the -State of Georgia, and to cause to be laid before Congress the result of -such examination and survey, with an estimate of the expense of -rendering such route fit, in all its parts, to be the established route -of the post; the expense of such examination and survey to be defrayed -out of the surplus revenues of the Post Office.[69] - -_Ordered_, That Mr. MADISON, Mr. THATCHER, Mr. BALDWIN, Mr. HENDERSON, -and Mr. SHERBURNE, be appointed a committee pursuant to the said -resolution. - - -MONDAY, February 22. - -_Washington's Birth-Day._ - -Mr. W. SMITH moved that the House adjourn for half an hour. - -This motion occasioned a good deal of conversation upon its propriety. -In favor of it, it was said, that it had been a practice ever since the -commencement of the Government, for that House to make a short -adjournment on that day in order to pay their compliments to the -PRESIDENT, and that several members were absent, from an idea that the -House would adjourn at 12 o'clock as usual. On the other hand, it was -objected that it was the business of the members of that House first to -do their duty, and then attend to the paying of compliments; that just -at that time the house of the PRESIDENT was filled with militia and -others; and that, therefore, it would be better, upon the whole, to wait -upon the PRESIDENT after the business of the day was finished. - -Mr. GALLATIN moved that the words "half an hour" be struck out. - -The sense of the House was first taken on the amendment, which was lost, -without a division. The motion was then put and negatived, being 38 for -it, and 50 against it. - - -FRIDAY, February 26. - -_Compensation to Members._ - -Mr. GILES moved that the bill for allowing compensation to the members -of the Senate and House of Representatives, and certain officers of both -Houses, be taken up, which being agreed to, the House resolved itself -into a Committee of the Whole; and the bill being read, - -Mr. SWIFT wished to strike out the words making the Speaker a greater -allowance than other members. - -Mr. GILES thought a larger allowance ought to be made to the Speaker -than to other members, as his duty was double that of any other member; -but if gentlemen wished to do away the incidental expenses of the -office, he had no objection. - -Mr. SWIFT consented to vary his motion according to the ideas of the -member from Virginia. If the Speaker had more duty to perform than other -members, he should be willing to make him a greater allowance, but he -doubted it. - -Mr. W. SMITH hoped no alteration would be made in the allowance -heretofore made; he saw no reason for it. - -Mr. GOODHUE said, he voted against the additional pay allowed the -Speaker when the act first passed, as he saw no necessity for the -Speaker to give dinners to the members of that House; but though he -objected to this, he was willing to allow him recompense for his -additional services. He hoped, however, the gentleman who now so ably -filled the office, would not consider any thing said on this subject as -alluding personally to him. - -Mr. SEDGWICK was willing to give the money to the Speaker which had -heretofore been paid him, and for the same purpose, although he and his -colleague were both against the measure when it originally passed. - -Mr. DAYTON wished the business might be discussed without reference to -him personally. Indeed he believed he should not be materially affected -by any regulations which might be agreed to, as, if he might judge by -his present feelings, his health would not permit him to remain in the -chair after this session. - -Mr. GILES was confident that no one meant to hurt the feelings of the -gentleman who now filled the chair. The member from Massachusetts had -said, when the measure passed, he was against it, but now he was in -favor of it. He could see no ground for this change of sentiment. Mr. G. -said, he was against the money being paid for incidental expenses, but -not against making the Speaker ample allowance for his services. - -Mr. KITCHELL was also for striking out the words, but for making ample -compensation to the Speaker. - -Mr. BOURNE did not suppose that the incidental expenses of the Speaker -were confined to the dinners which he gave them; he was put to more -expense in receiving company than other members. He did not think six -dollars a day too much for this. - -Mr. MADISON said, it was customary in all the State Governments to make -the Speaker a greater allowance than other members: his services were -far greater; they were uninterrupted. Besides, it was necessary to do so -to invite men of talents to accept of the office; and every one knew the -advantages arising from having a man of talents as Speaker. Without -inquiring whether the compensation was too large or too small, he -doubted whether it was constitutional to make any alteration in it which -might affect the present Speaker. To support his opinions he read a -clause of the constitution. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE was of opinion that nothing in the constitution extended -to the present question. He hoped they should agree to strike out the -words alluded to, as the sooner the practice of feasting was abolished, -the better. If members wished to form social acquaintances, it was far -preferable to visit each other at their lodgings. He said, this was the -first time the law had come under review since it had passed, and it was -proper to have the matter settled. He wished to allow a reasonable sum -for the services of the Speaker, but no more. He did not think there was -any weight in the observation, that a large compensation was necessary -to induce men of talents to accept of the chair--he thought the honor -was a sufficient inducement. - -Mr. WILLIAMS said there was no office appertaining to the Speaker which -included expense; the words ought therefore to be struck out. - -Mr. PAGE was in favor of striking out the words, as he did not -understand their meaning, but in favor of keeping the allowance of the -Speaker the same as usual. The Speaker, he said, ought to be placed in -an independent situation, by a handsome salary. His duties were fourfold -to those of any other member. Indeed, said he, nothing but a sense of -duty could induce a man to undertake such an office. - -Mr. GILES said, if it was agreed to strike out the words _for the -incidental expenses of his office_, he should move to introduce in their -place, "_on account of extra services annexed to his office_." - -Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH liked the words proposed better than those in the -bill, but did not think it of the importance it was made. - -The motion for striking out was put and carried. - -Mr. GILES then proposed his motion. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE was against the introduction of these words. - -Mr. VARNUM hoped the motion would prevail. The services of the Speaker -are extraordinary and laborious. The State Legislatures, he said, always -allowed their Speaker double the pay of other members. - -Mr. MURRAY hoped the words would not obtain. He considered the -Speakership of that House as a very elevated situation. In certain -contingencies he believed he was the Chief Executive of the United -States. He thought the calculation of pay too mechanical. The dignity of -the office was sufficient, without extraordinary compensation; the -duties of it were well known. - -The question was put, and negatived. - -Mr. GILES moved to fill up the blank for the daily allowance of members -of the Senate with six dollars. - -Mr. PAGE proposed seven; when, after a few observations from Mr. -WILLIAMS in favor of six, the sense of the House was taken, which was in -favor of six dollars--only twenty-one members rising in favor of seven. - -The allowance of the Speaker again coming into consideration, Mr. SWIFT -wished an inquiry might be made into the duties of the office. It was -his opinion that many members upon committees performed greater services -than he; and if the Speaker had an extra allowance, they ought to have -an extra allowance also. Some gentlemen thought, on the score of -dignity, a high salary ought to be paid. He thought differently. Can it -be supposed it would be necessary, said he, to give any member of this -House double pay to accept of the office? No such thing. Being now -discharged from any obligation to treat members, he could not agree to -allow him the usual sum. He should not object to two or three dollars a -day extra, but no more. - -Mr. GILES thought the duty of the Speaker three times as arduous as that -of any other member of the House. - -Mr. CRABB voted for striking out the words, but he was not for -diminishing the salary of the Speaker. - -The motion for the usual allowance was put and carried, and the other -blanks of the bill were filled up with the same sums as heretofore -allowed to the different officers. The committee rose; the bill then -went through the House, and was ordered to be engrossed and read a third -time on Monday. - - -MONDAY, March 7. - -_The Treaty with Great Britain._ - -[The debate on the subject of the Treaty with Great Britain, and of the -constitutional powers of the House with respect to treaties, having -occupied the time of the House nearly every day for a month, (commencing -the 7th of March and ending on the 7th of April,) it is deemed -preferable, and as being more acceptable to the reader, to present the -whole in one body consecutively, rather than to spread it in detached -parts intermixed with other subjects, through the general proceedings of -each day. This debate, as here given, possesses a character for -authenticity and correctness which does not belong to the newspaper -reports of the day, it having undergone the careful revision of the -Speakers themselves. The debate which took place on making the provision -for carrying the Treaty into effect, will be found subsequently, in the -proceedings of each day as the subject came up before the House.][70] - -On the second of March, Mr. LIVINGSTON, after stating that the late -British Treaty must give rise in the House to some very important and -constitutional questions, to throw light upon which every information -would be required, laid the following resolution upon the table. - - "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be - requested to lay before this House a copy of the - instructions to the Minister of the United States, who - negotiated the Treaty with the King of Great Britain, - communicated by his Message of the first of March, together - with the correspondence and other documents relative to the - said Treaty." - -MARCH 7.--Mr. LIVINGSTON said he wished to modify the resolution he had -laid on the table, requesting the PRESIDENT to lay before the House -sundry documents respecting the Treaty. It was calculated to meet the -suggestions of gentlemen to whose opinions he paid the highest respect, -and was founded in the reflection that the negotiations on the twelfth -article were probably unfinished; and therefore, he said, a disclosure -of papers relative to that or any other pending negotiation, might -embarrass the Executive. He wished, therefore, to add, at the end of his -former motion, the following words: "Excepting such of said papers as -any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed." - -The motion of Mr. LIVINGSTON was then taken up. - -Mr. TRACY requested gentlemen in favor of the resolution to give their -reasons why the application for papers was to be made. - -Mr. LIVINGSTON said, he had no wish to conceal his intentions. The -motives that impelled him to make the motion, were not such as to make -him wish to conceal them, or such as he ought to blush at when -discovered. The gentleman from Connecticut wished to know why he had -brought this resolution before the House? He did it for the sake of -information. That gentleman wished to know to what point this -information was to apply? Possibly to all the points he had enumerated. -It was impossible, however, to say to which or how many of these points -without a recurrence to those very papers. He could not determine now, -he said, that an impeachment would be deemed advisable; yet, when the -papers are obtained, they may make such a step advisable. It was -impossible to declare an impeachment advisable, without having the -necessary lights as to the conduct of officers. The House were, on every -occasion, the guardians of their country's rights. They are, by the -constitution, the accusing organ of the officers employed. The -information called for they ought to possess, as it would tend to -elucidate the conduct of the officers. His principal reason, however, -for proposing the measure, was a firm conviction that the House were -vested with a discretionary power of carrying the Treaty into effect, or -refusing it their sanction. - -Mr. MURRAY said, that he was against the resolution for two reasons, -which then struck his mind forcibly. The first was the want of a -declared object within the acknowledged cognizance of the House; the -other was because he believed it was designed as the groundwork of a -very dangerous doctrine, that the House had a right to adjudge, to -adopt, or to reject Treaties generally. Had the gentlemen stated the -object for which they called for the papers to be an impeachment, or any -inquiry into fraud, as a circumstance attending the making of the -Treaty, the subject would be presented under an aspect very different -from that which it has assumed. He considered a Treaty, constitutionally -made, to be the supreme law of the land. The Treaty in view has been -negotiated and ratified, he thought, agreeably to the constitution. It -has been issued, by the PRESIDENT's proclamation, as an act obligatory -upon the United States. If the House mean to go into the merits of that -instrument, and the information be called for with that view, he should -feel himself bound by the constitution to give it every opposition. - -Mr. BALDWIN thought the resolution so unexceptionable that he had -expected it would have been agreed to without debate. The PRESIDENT has -sent the House the Treaty; petitions have come forward on the subject; -the House must act in the business. It is yet unaccompanied with any -documents to throw light upon it. No person concerned in the negotiation -has a seat on the floor of the House; so that no oral information can be -expected. Implicit faith was not to be reposed, he imagined, in public -officers. It would be unfair to take up the subject naked and -unexplained. - -Mr. GALLATIN said, he should not now enter into the merits of the -question, but merely state that pertain powers are delegated by the -constitution to Congress. They possess the authority of regulating -trade. The Treaty-making power delegated to the Executive may be -considered as clashing with that. The question may arise, whether a -Treaty made by the PRESIDENT and Senate, containing regulations touching -objects delegated to Congress, can be considered binding, without -Congress passing laws to carry it into effect. A difference of opinion -may exist as to the proper construction of the several articles of the -constitution, so as to reconcile those apparently contradictory -provisions. But all those questions would occur in future discussions. -What is now wanted is information on the subject, to elucidate the -different views which may be taken of the Treaty. It must do good to -obtain it, and could do no harm to ask for it. If it would be improper -to communicate any part of the information on the subject, the PRESIDENT -will say so. He had hoped, he said, that the resolution would have -passed without objection. He concluded by observing, that the House were -the grand inquest of the nation, and that they had the right to call for -papers on which to ground an impeachment; but he believed, that if this -was intended, it would be proper that the resolution should be -predicated upon a declaration of that intention. At present, he did not -contemplate the exercise of that right. - -Mr. MADISON admitted that every proposition, however distantly related -to a question on the Treaty, drew from the importance of that subject -considerable importance to itself. In a discussion of this subject, he -felt strongly the obligation of proceeding with the utmost respect to -the decorum and dignity of the House, with a proper delicacy to the -other departments of Government, and, at the same time, with fidelity -and responsibility for our constituents. The proposition now before the -House, he conceived, might be considered as closely connected with this -important question. It was to be decided whether the general power of -making Treaties supersedes the powers of the House of Representatives, -particularly specified in the constitution, so as to take to the -Executive all deliberative will, and leave the House only an Executive -and ministerial instrumental agency? - -Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, that he had listened attentively to -the reasons advanced in favor of this resolution, and that he had heard -nothing to convince him of its propriety. The PRESIDENT and Senate have, -by the constitution, the power of making Treaties, and the House have no -agency in them, except to make laws necessary to carry them into -operation; he considered the House as bound, in common with their -fellow-citizens, to do every thing in their power to carry them into -full execution. He recognized but one exception to this rule, and that -was, when the instrument was clearly unconstitutional. In this case, he -remarked, it had not been said that the Treaty was unconstitutional. -When the resolution was first brought forward, it had indeed been -observed, that the discussion might involve certain constitutional -points, and, therefore, the papers called for by the resolution were -necessary; but it was obvious, the question of constitutionality should -be determined from the face of the instrument, and that a knowledge of -the preparatory steps which led to its adoption, could throw no light -upon it; that ground was therefore abandoned even by the friends of the -resolution, and others were resorted to. - -He was surprised that gentlemen who displayed such zeal for the -constitution should support a proposition, the tendency of which went -indirectly to break down the constitutional limits between the Executive -and Legislative Departments. The constitution had assigned to the -Executive the business of negotiation with foreign powers; this House -can claim no right by the constitution to interfere in such -negotiations; every movement of the kind must be considered as an -attempt to usurp powers not delegated, and will be resisted by the -Executive; for a concession would be a surrender of the powers specially -delegated to him, and a violation of his trust. The proposition calls -upon the PRESIDENT to lay before the House the instructions given to Mr. -Jay, and the correspondence between him and Lord Grenville; and for what -purpose? Is this House to negotiate the Treaty over again? Has the -constitution made this House a diplomatic body, invested with the powers -of negotiation? Is not this House excluded? for, if the maxim that "the -expression of one is the exclusion of another," applies to this case, -the assignment of the Treaty-making power to the PRESIDENT and Senate, -is a manifest exclusion of this House. This call, then, on the -PRESIDENT, is an attempt to obtain indirectly what the constitution has -expressly assigned to others. - -After Mr. S. had sat down, it was moved by Mr. GILES, to take the -resolution up in Committee of the Whole for the purpose of more ample -discussion. - -This motion was agreed to; sixty-one members rising in the affirmative. - -The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on -the resolution. - -Mr. NICHOLAS remarked, that the member from Connecticut, first up, when -inquiring for the reason of a call for papers, had suggested two. The -one, relating to the merits of the instrument; the other, an inquiry -into the conduct of officers concerned. On the latter ground, gentlemen -conceded that the House had a right to require the papers, and yet -seemed willing to adhere to that, on which they conceived a call could -not be, with propriety, grounded, as the one that influenced the conduct -of the friends to the resolution. All gentlemen admitted, that the House -had the superintendence over the officers of Government, as the grand -inquest of the nation; but persisted that the resolution calling for -papers, if intended for the purpose of exercising that authority, must -be predicated on an expression of the intention. - -He took a view of the prominent features of the arguments of the members -up before him. It had been said that, if the power of the PRESIDENT and -Senate, as to Treaties, was complete, then the House had no right to -claim a participation; this could not be denied; but the question was, -whether the Executive had that right unqualifiedly, in all cases. In the -present case, he contended, the House had a voice. To elucidate: Suppose -that, in the constitution of the United States, which has been so -guarded about the expenditure of money, a clause had been inserted, -positively declaring that the House have a control over the money -matters stipulated in a Treaty; would not this constitute a -qualification of the powers of the PRESIDENT and Senate with respect to -Treaties? The constitution, on this head, he contended, though less -explicit than his supposed case would make it, was not the less -positive, if tested by all the fair rules of construction; and if -compared with the practice of the government from which we had borrowed, -with many other matters, this part of our constitution. In England, the -country alluded to, their House of Parliament had exercised a control -over the moneyed articles of Treaties; and he contended, the House of -Representatives had an equal authority here, as chief guardians of the -purse-strings. It was unnecessary, at this time, he said, to touch on -the other parts of the Treaty which clashed with the constitutional -powers of the House. - -He again adverted to the power of control that the House of Commons have -over Treaties; and contended, that that provision of the British -constitution had been accurately copied in our own with this deviation -only, that the Senate have the power of making amendments to money bills -here, which the House of Lords there have not. He could show, from the -best authority, the acknowledgment of the British Crown officers -themselves, that the Parliament has a right to discuss and decide on -Treaties which involved moneyed stipulations. - -The same power, he argued, resided in the House here; for shall it be -said, that we have borrowed only the form from Great Britain, and not -touched the substance? Shall it be said, that the House have a -discretion as to appropriations, and yet they must make them as directed -by a Treaty? If the House have no discretion to use in the business, -they are the most unfit body to regulate money-matters; for complete -regularity in so large a body must be one of the least of their valuable -properties. But, with the power of appropriating money, the House have -certainly the right to judge of the propriety of the appropriation. The -constitution explains itself fully on this head. He instanced the -specific power in the constitution, with respect to appropriations for -the army, to explain from that instrument its meaning in other parts. - -The constitution says, that no appropriations for the support of armies -shall be for more than two years; this is, no doubt, that the House may -periodically have before them the question of the propriety of -supporting an armed force, with all its consequences, and that they may, -by refusing or granting an appropriation, determine on its existence. -The power thus cautiously lodged must have been for some purpose, and -that he had suggested could alone explain this clause of the -constitution. This will show what was expected of this House in -appropriating money; that they should judge of the usefulness of the -expenditure. In the case of the army, the constitution does not say that -we may disband an army by withholding money; but for the purpose of -investing us with the same power, only requires that the appropriation -should recur every two years; taking it for granted, that in this as -well as in every other Legislative act, we will duly weigh every -consequence. - -Having thus explained from the constitution itself the true meaning of -this power of appropriation, he proceeded to elucidate it by a reference -to the practice of the Government. He found an instance in the permanent -appropriations made for the payment of the public debt. If the House in -this and analogous cases, could exercise no discretion as to -appropriations, why this permanent provision, in preference to an annual -appropriation? The permanency of the provision took its rise from the -idea, that the House possessed a discretionary power as to -appropriations. Thus, he had shown that the practice of the Government, -the provisions of the constitution, and the example of the British, from -whom we had exactly copied the control over money transactions, all -proved a discretion in the House as to appropriations. This must be -considered as a sufficient answer to the gentleman from South Carolina, -when he said, that the PRESIDENT and Senate possessed the Treaty-making -power; for they possessed it with qualification, in matters of money; -and unless the House chose to grant that money, it was so far no Treaty. - -It was said, that if the Treaty was not the law of the land, the -PRESIDENT should be impeached for declaring it as such. Parts of the -Treaty the PRESIDENT and Senate had, no doubt, a right to make without -any control of the House--those parts he might be considered as -proclaiming; he proclaims it, limited as his authority, and under the -qualifications provided by the constitution. It was said, that no -instance of such a call as that now contemplated could be produced. No; -nor of such a Treaty, he answered. - -Mr. SWANWICK expressed his sense of the importance of the subject before -the House, and the pleasure which he experienced at observing the -calmness and temper with which the discussion had been carried on. He -had not conceived, however, that the decision of the present question -involved the sense of the House as to the merits of the Treaty; the -object of the resolution was only to obtain that knowledge necessary for -an enlightened decision; it had been observed, that the Treaty had been -censured by assemblages of people with precipitancy, and without proper -information. They did this on the best information that could by them be -obtained. But if the House should go into a Committee of the Whole, to -take into consideration the Treaty, without obtaining all the -information in their power, they would be justly to blame. - -He adverted to the constitution; according to that instrument, the -Legislative power is completely vested in Congress. By the 8th section -of the 1st article, not only a certain specification of powers are -granted to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce, &c., -but the very extensive further power, not only to make all laws which -shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing -powers, but, also, all other powers vested by this constitution in the -Government of the United States, or in any department or officer -thereof. If, then, Congress have the power to pass laws to carry into -execution all powers vested by the constitution in the Government of the -United States, or in any department or officer thereof, how is it -possible that there can be any authority out of the purview of this -general and extensive Legislative control? Is the Treaty-making power -not a power vested by the constitution in the Government of the United -States, or in a department or officer thereof? If it is, is the -conclusion not obvious, that Congress have power to pass laws for -carrying these powers into effect? But in the power to pass laws, -discretion is necessarily implied; of course, this House must judge when -it is to act; whether it will, or will not, carry into effect the object -in question. It is a power, it is true, of great delicacy and -responsibility, but it is not less a power constitutionally given. - -The member from South Carolina construed this part of the constitution -in a different way, and insisted that, as the PRESIDENT and Senate had -the power of making Treaties, the House were divested of the right of -exercising their judgment upon the subject. If this doctrine prevails, -to what a situation would the Representatives of a free people be -reduced? The constitution especially gives them the power of originating -money bills; but to what purpose would this power be granted, if another -authority may make a contract, compelling the House to raise money? -Suppose that authority were in this way to grant millions upon millions, -must the House, at all events, be compelled to provide for their -payment? In this case the House become mere automatons, mere mandarine -members, like those who nod on a chimney-piece, as directed by a power -foreign to themselves. - -Great stress is laid upon the constitution declaring Treaties laws of -the land. This article has often been quoted partially, but not at -large. It is in these words: "This constitution, and the laws of the -United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all -Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United -States, shall be the supreme law of the land." Had the clause stopped -here, there might have been some plea for the gentlemen's doctrine; but, -unfortunately for them, the article goes on to say: "And the Judges in -every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or -laws of any State, to the contrary notwithstanding." Hence, it is -obvious that the supremacy of the law is over the constitution and laws -of the separate States, which was necessary to prevent these interfering -with those. But it does not affect the powers of this House, as a -component part of the General Legislature, and authority of the United -States. It is also worth while to notice the gradation in the article. - -First. This constitution. - -Secondly. The laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, clothed -with the highest sanction of the nation, the consent of the three -branches. - -Thirdly. Treaties. How absurd the doctrine, then, that these last, third -in order, can repeal the second: at that rate, all power whatever would -remain vested in two branches only of the Government; the third, with -all its powers of originating bills for raising revenue, would be -dwindled into a mere board of assessors. - -The gentleman from Vermont said, yesterday, that if the PRESIDENT and -Senate were to make a Treaty, and that House were to refuse to make due -appropriations for carrying it into effect, it would become a nullity, -and no foreign nation would in future treat with such an uncertain -Government. Mr. S. observed, that that gentleman would probably be -surprised, when he was told, that the British House of Commons possesses -the same power which he reprobates in the Legislative Assembly of the -United States. This, Mr. S. proved, by reading the King's Speech to both -Houses of Parliament, in which he informs them of this Treaty, and -promises to lay it before them when ratified, in order that they might -judge of the propriety of making provision to carry it into effect. -What, judge of the propriety of passing laws to carry into effect a -Treaty ratified! And shall it be said, exclaimed he, that the -Representative Assembly of the United States does not possess a -privilege enjoyed by an English House of Commons! He hoped not. - -Mr. HARPER said, that it had not been his intention to trouble the -committee, in this stage of the debate at least; nor should he now -depart from his resolution on that head, had he not observed that the -discussion was turning more and more on points, which it appeared to him -unnecessary to decide. He did not conceive that the powers of the House -respecting Treaties were necessary to be considered; the question -appeared capable of a satisfactory decision on different grounds. - -When the motion was first proposed, he thought it innocent at least, and -was in doubt whether it might not be proper, because he was in doubt how -far these papers might be necessary for enabling the House to exercise -that discretion on the subject of Treaties, which he admitted it to -possess; but on a more accurate and extensive view of the subject, and -after carefully attending to the discussion which had already taken -place, he was thoroughly persuaded that these papers were no way -necessary, and, that being unnecessary, to call for them was an improper -and unconstitutional interference with the Executive department. Could -it be made to appear that these papers are necessary for directing or -informing the House on any of those Legislative questions respecting the -Treaty which came within its powers, he should propose to change the -milk-and-water style of the present resolution. The House, in that case, -would have a right to the papers; and he had no idea of requesting as a -favor what should be demanded as a right. He would demand them, and -insist on the demand. But, being persuaded that no discretion hitherto -contended for, even by the supporters of the resolution themselves, made -these papers necessary to the House, to call for them would be an -unconstitutional intermeddling with the proper business of the -Executive. - -It had been said, that this motion was of little consequence; that it -was only a request which might be refused, and that the privileges of -that House were narrow indeed, if it could not request information from -the Executive department. But it would be observed, he said, that -requests from bodies like that, carry the force of demands, and imply a -right to receive. Legislative bodies often make the most formidable -expressions of their will in the shape of requests. It would be further -observed, that an honorable member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GALLATIN,) -after declaring that this indeed was only a request which might be -refused, had added, that in case it were refused, it would then be -proper to consider how far we ought to make the demand, and insist on -receiving these papers as a matter of right. After this avowal of the -system, after this notice that the present request is no more than a -preliminary measure, a preparatory step, and in case of a refusal, is to -be followed up by a demand, could it be wondered that they who think the -measure improper, should oppose it in the threshold? - -Mr. GALLATIN conceived that, whether the House had a discretionary power -with respect to Treaties, or whether they were absolutely bound by those -instruments, and were obliged to pass laws to carry them fully into -effect, still there was no impropriety in calling for the papers. Under -the first view of the subject, if the House has a discretionary power, -then no doubt could exist that the information called for is proper; -and, under the second, if bound to pass laws, they must have a complete -knowledge of the subject, to learn what laws ought to be passed. This -latter view of the subject, even, must introduce a discussion of the -Treaty, to know whether any law ought to be repealed, or to see what -laws ought to be passed. If any article in the instrument should be -found of doubtful import, the House would most naturally search for an -explanation, in the documents which related to the steps which led to -the Treaty. If one article of the Treaty only be doubtful, the House -would not know how to legislate without the doubt being removed, and its -explanation could certainly be found nowhere with so much propriety as -in the correspondence between the negotiating parties. - -Gentlemen had gone into an examination of an important constitutional -question upon this motion. He hoped this would have been avoided in the -present stage of the business; but as they had come forward on that -ground, he had no objection to follow them in it, _and to rest the -decision of the constitutional powers of Congress on the fate of the -present question_. He would, therefore, state his opinion, that the -House had a _right_ to ask for the papers proposed to be called for, -because their co-operation and sanction was necessary to carry the -Treaty into full effect, to render it a binding instrument, and to make -it, properly speaking, a law of the land; because they had a full -discretion either to give or to refuse that co-operation; because they -must be guided, in the exercise of that discretion, by the merits and -expediency of the Treaty itself, and therefore had a _right_ to ask for -every information which could assist them in deciding that question. - -One argument repeatedly used by every gentleman opposed to the present -motion was, "That the Treaty was unconstitutional or not; if not, the -House had no agency in the business, but must carry it into full effect; -and if unconstitutional, the question could only be decided from the -face of the instrument, and no papers could throw light upon the -question." He wished gentlemen had defined what they understood by a -constitutional Treaty; for, if the scope of their arguments was referred -to, it would not be found possible to make an unconstitutional treaty. -He would say what he conceived constituted the unconstitutionality of a -treaty. A treaty is unconstitutional if it provides for doing such -things, the doing of which is forbidden by the constitution; but if a -treaty embraces objects within the sphere of the general powers -delegated to the Federal Government, but which have been exclusively and -specially granted to a particular branch of Government, say to the -Legislative department, such a Treaty, though not unconstitutional, does -not become the law of the land until it has obtained the sanction of -that branch. In this case, and to this end, the Legislature have a right -to demand the documents relative to the negotiation of the Treaty, -because that Treaty operates on objects specially delegated to the -Legislature. He turned to the constitution. It says that the PRESIDENT -shall have the power to make Treaties, by and with the advice and -consent of two-thirds of the Senate. It does not say what Treaties. If -the clause be taken by itself, then it grants an authority altogether -undefined. But the gentlemen quote another clause of the constitution, -where it is said that the constitution, and the laws made in pursuance -thereof, and all Treaties, are the supreme law of the land; and thence, -they insist that Treaties made by the PRESIDENT and Senate are the -supreme law of the land, and that the power of making Treaties is -undefined and unlimited. He proceeded to controvert this opinion, and -contended that it was limited by other parts of the constitution. - -The power of making Treaties is contended to be undefined, then it might -extend to all subjects which may properly become the subjects of -national compacts. But, he contended, if any other specific powers were -given to a different branch of the Government, they must limit the -general powers; and, to make the compact valid, it was necessary that, -as far as those powers clashed with the general, that the branch holding -the specific should concur and give its sanction. If still it is -insisted that Treaties are the supreme law of the land, the constitution -and laws are also; and it may be asked, which shall have the preference? -Shall a Treaty repeal a law or a law a Treaty? Neither can a law repeal -a Treaty, because a Treaty is made with the concurrence of another -party--a foreign nation--that has no participation in framing the law: -nor can a Treaty made by the PRESIDENT and Senate repeal a law, for the -same reason, because the House of Representatives have a participation -in making the law. It is a sound maxim in Government, that it requires -the same power to repeal a law that enacted it. If so, then it follows -that laws and Treaties are not of the same nature; that both operate as -the law of the land, but under certain limitations; both are subject to -the control of the constitution; they are made not only by different -powers, but those powers are distributed, under different modifications, -among the several branches of the Government. Thus no law could be made -by the Legislature giving themselves power to execute it; and no Treaty, -by the Executive, embracing objects specifically assigned to the -Legislature without their assent. - -To what, he asked, would a contrary doctrine lead? If the power of -making Treaties is to reside in the PRESIDENT and Senate unlimitedly: in -other words, if, in the exercise of this power, the PRESIDENT and Senate -are to be restrained by no other branch of the Government, the PRESIDENT -and Senate may absorb all Legislative power--the Executive has, then, -nothing to do but to substitute a foreign nation for the House of -Representatives, and they may legislate to any extent. If the -Treaty-making power is unlimited and undefined, it may extend to every -object of legislation. Under it money may be borrowed, as well as -commerce regulated; and why not money appropriated? For, arguing as the -gentlemen do, they might say the constitution says that no money shall -be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by -law. But Treaties, whatever provision they may contain, are law; -appropriations, therefore, may be made by Treaties. Then it would have -been the shortest way to have carried the late Treaty into effect by the -instrument itself, by adding to it another article, appropriating the -necessary sums. By what provision of the constitution is the -Treaty-making power, agreeably to the construction of the gentlemen, -limited? Is it limited by the provisions with respect to appropriations? -Not more so than by the other specific powers granted to the -Legislature. Is it limited by any law past? If not, it must embrace -every thing, and all the objects of legislation. If not limited by -existing laws, or if it repeals the laws that clash with it, or if the -Legislature is obliged to repeal the laws so clashing, then the -Legislative power in fact resides in the PRESIDENT and Senate, and they -can, by employing an Indian tribe, pass any law under the color of -Treaty. Unless it is allowed that either the power of the House over the -purse-strings is a check, or the existing laws cannot be repealed by a -Treaty, or that the special powers granted to Congress limit the general -power of Treaty-making, there are no bounds to it, it must absorb all -others, repeal all laws in contravention to it, and act without control. - -To the construction he had given to this part of the constitution, no -such formidable objections could be raised. He did not claim for the -House a power of making Treaties, but a check upon the Treaty-making -power--a mere negative power; whilst those who are in favor of a -different construction advocate a positive and unlimited power. - -He read a quotation from _Blackstone_, page 257, vol. i., to show that -the power of Treaty-making in England is as extensively vested in the -King, as it can possibly be said to be here in our Executive. - -The following is the passage alluded to: - - "II. It is also the King's prerogative to make Treaties, - leagues, and alliances with foreign States and Princes. For - it is, by the law of nations, essential to the goodness of - a league, that it be made by the sovereign power, and then - it is binding upon the whole community; and, in England, - the sovereign power, _quo ad hoc_, is vested in the person - of the King. Whatever contracts, therefore, he engages in, - no other power in the kingdom can legally delay, resist, or - annul." - -After such a latitude as this clause gives, it would be supposed that -there could be no check reserved upon this power; yet it will be found -that Parliament have a participation in it. And the apparent -inconsistency is easily reconciled, by observing that the power given -generally to the Executive of making contracts with other nations, does -not imply that of making Legislative regulations, but that when the -contract happens to embrace Legislative objects, the assistance of the -Legislature becomes necessary to give it effect. - -He proceeded to show the operation of this limitation of the -Treaty-making power in England by the practice of Parliament. It was -always considered as discretionary with Parliament to grant money to -carry Treaties into effect or not, and to repeal or not to repeal laws -that interfere with them. In citing instances of the exercise of this -power, he should not go further back than their Revolution. - -He then read several extracts from _Anderson's_ History of Commerce, -vol. iii. pages 269, '70, '71, '72. They are so much in point that we -transcribe the most material passages: - - "But we could not omit our animadversions on the eighth and - ninth articles, as they were so extraordinary in - themselves, and as they occasioned so great a stir and - uneasiness at that time, as to have brought the whole - Treaty of Commerce to miscarry then and ever since. - - "ART. IX. That within the space of two months after a law - shall be made in Great Britain, whereby it shall be - sufficiently provided that not more customs or duties be - paid for goods and merchandise brought from France into - Great Britain than what are payable for goods and - merchandise of the like nature, imported into Great Britain - from any other country in Europe; and that all laws made in - Great Britain since the year 1664 for prohibiting the - importation of any goods or merchandise coming from France, - which were not prohibited before that time, be repealed, - the general tariff in France, on the 18th of September, in - the said year 1664, shall take place there again, and the - duties payable in France by the subjects of Great Britain - for goods imported and exported, shall be paid according to - the tenor of the tariff above mentioned. - - "When the said two articles came to be known by the - merchants of Great Britain, they were received with the - utmost surprise and indignation, and the clamor was loud - and universal. - - "That the complying with those two articles would - effectually ruin the commerce we carried on to - Portugal--the very best branch of all our European - commerce. That the said eight articles did, in general - terms, put France on an equal footing with Portugal or any - other of our best allies, in point of commerce." - - "This is, in brief, the sum of this mercantile controversy, - which when brought into Parliament, it was so apparent that - our trade to France had ever been a ruinous one, and that - if, in consequence of accepting the said eighth and ninth - articles, the British Parliament should consent to reduce - the high duties and take off the prohibitions so prudently - laid on French commodities, it would effectually ruin the - very best branches of our commerce, and would thereby - deprive many hundred thousand manufacturers of their - subsistence; which was also supported by petitions from - many parts of the kingdom: that, although a great majority - of that House of Commons was in other respects closely - attached to the ministry, _the bill for agreeing to the - purport of the said two articles was rejected by a majority - of nine voices_, after the most eminent merchants had been - heard at the bar of that House, to the great joy of the - whole trading part of the nation, and of all other - impartial people." - -Thus it must be clearly seen, that the consent of Parliament was not -only deemed necessary to the completion of the Treaty, but that that -consent was refused, and that in consequence the Treaty fell to the -ground, and was not revived for a period of near eighty years, and all -notwithstanding the plenitude of the Treaty-making power, said by the -best English authority, _Blackstone_, to be vested in the King; which -was, however, he repeated, necessarily checked by the special powers -vested in Parliament; for none but they could grant money, or repeal the -laws clashing with the provisions of Treaties. - -He cited another instance of the exercise of this controlling power in -Parliament of even a later date, viz: in the year 1739, in the case of a -Treaty between Spain and Great Britain, which was sanctioned by a very -small majority indeed in Parliament. He cited a third example from -_Anderson_, vol. vi., page 828, in the case of the Treaty of Commerce -between France and Great Britain, to show that the practice of the -Parliament's interfering in Treaties is not obsolete. - -The following is an article of the said Treaty, which Mr. GALLATIN read: - - "XIV. The advantages granted by the present Treaty to the - subjects of His Britannic Majesty shall take effect, as far - as relates to the kingdom of Great Britain, as soon as laws - shall be passed there, for securing to the subjects of His - Most Christian Majesty the reciprocal enjoyment of the - advantages which are granted to them by the Treaty. - - "And the advantages by all these articles, except the - tariff, shall take effect with regard to the kingdom of - Ireland, as soon as laws shall be passed there, for - securing to the subjects of His Most Christian Majesty the - reciprocal enjoyment of the advantages which are granted - to them by this Treaty: and, in like manner, the advantages - granted by the tariff shall take effect in what relates to - the said kingdom, as soon as laws shall be passed there for - giving effect to the said tariff." - -Upon this principle, founded on almost immemorial practice in Great -Britain, did the Minister of that kingdom, when introducing the late -Treaty with Prussia into Parliament, tell the House that they will have -to consider the Treaty and make provision for carrying it into effect. -On the same principle, when the debate took place on that instrument, it -was moved to strike out the sum proposed to be voted, which would have -defeated it, and afterwards to strike out the appropriation clause, -which would have rendered the bill a mere vote of credit, and would also -have caused the Treaty to fall to the ground. On the same principle, the -King of Great Britain, when he mentioned the American Treaty, promised -to lay it before them in proper season, that they might _judge of the -propriety_ of enacting the necessary provisions to carry it into effect. - -It remains to be examined, said Mr. G., whether we are to be in a worse -situation than Great Britain; whether the House of Representatives of -the United States, the substantial and immediate Representatives of the -American people, shall be ranked below the British House of Commons; -whether the Legislative power shall be swallowed up by the Treaty-making -authority, as contended for here, though never claimed even in Great -Britain? - -In Great Britain, he remarked, the Treaty-making power is as undefined -as in America. The constitution here, declares that the PRESIDENT and -Senate shall make Treaties; there, custom says as loudly, that the King -shall make them. In Great Britain, however, the power is limited, by -immemorial custom, by the exercise of the Legislative authority by a -branch distinct from the regal; in the same manner is it limited here, -not however merely by custom and tradition, but by the words of the -constitution, which gives specifically the Legislative power to -Congress; and he hoped this authority would be exercised by the House -with as much spirit and independence as any where. - -If this doctrine is sanctioned, if it is allowed, that Treaties may -regulate appropriations and repeal existing laws, and the House, by -rejecting the present resolution declare, that they give up all control, -all right to the exercise of discretion, it is tantamount to saying, -that they abandon their share in legislation, and that they consent the -whole power should be concentred in the other branches. He did not -believe such a doctrine could be countenanced by the House. If gentlemen -should insist upon maintaining this doctrine, should deny the free -agency of the House, and their right to judge of the expediency of -carrying the Treaty into effect, the friends to the independence of the -House will be driven to the necessity to reject the Treaty, whether good -or bad, to assert the contested right. If the gentlemen abandoned this -ground, then the policy of the measure could be weighed on fair ground, -and the Treaty carried into affect, if reconcilable to the interests of -the United States. - -MARCH 10.--In Committee of the Whole, on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution, -Mr. HARTLEY delivered his sentiments as follows: - -As I was not present when this subject was first introduced, it cannot -be expected that I should take any great share in the debate; but some -observations I have heard, chiefly from the gentleman last up yesterday -from Pennsylvania, have induced me to show a few grounds for my vote. - -That gentleman has strongly combined this resolution with the Treaty, -and wishes that every one who holds that there should be a co-operation -of this House respecting that instrument, should vote for the -resolution. I think differently. - -The gentlemen who contend for the mighty power of the Executive and -Senate, as well as those who argue for the great authority of this -House, perhaps are on extremes; but the Treaty ought not now to be so -largely under consideration. I am willing, if it is thought proper, to -take it up at an early day, and, after a full hearing, will vote as I -hold right. - -The gentleman I referred to, from Pennsylvania, argued most strenuously -that the laws and customs of Great Britain and the Constitution of the -United States were analogous--nay, that the powers were precisely the -same. - -The gentlemen who hold this doctrine have made researches, and have -quoted several authorities; but why have not those ingenious gentlemen -discovered a single instance where the British House of Commons have had -the instructions given by the Executive to the negotiating Minister laid -before them. If there was such a power, no doubt that body would at some -period have exercised it; for no men on earth have extended the power of -privileges which they had further than the members of the House of -Commons of Britain. - -As those gentlemen who contend for the likeness--indeed, sameness of the -Treaty-making powers of both countries--can show no precedent, it may be -fairly contended, that no such right exists as is contemplated by the -resolution. - -Treaties are made under the Executive in almost all countries, and when -the Ministers have gone through their part of the business, the Treaty -is commonly laid before the nation. If any national act is further -necessary, it would pass in conformity to the principles of good faith; -if any thing is necessary (consistent with the constitution) on the part -of the House, it will be the discussion of another day. - -Mr. GRISWOLD said, that the resolution on the table appeared at first -view to be perfectly innocent, and, he might add, of very little -importance. It amounted to no more than a request to the PRESIDENT to -furnish the House with papers relating to the negotiation with Great -Britain, which he might either satisfy or reject. But the discussion -which had taken place in the committee, had given the subject a very -serious aspect, and involved a question of the first importance; and -although some gentlemen had thought that the committee had prematurely -involved itself in the examination of the question, he could not see how -the discussion could have been avoided. For gentlemen would not say that -any resolution--more particularly a resolution calling on the PRESIDENT -for documents belonging to the Executive Department--was to pass the -House without a conclusive reason, much less without any reason for its -passing. On this principle gentlemen had been called on at an early -period for the reasons on which they grounded the resolution. They had -attempted to assign reasons, but those reasons had been generally -abandoned; and it could not at that time be seriously contended that the -objects of general information or publicity, which had been first -mentioned, could justify the House in calling on the PRESIDENT for -papers relating to the British Treaty, or that those papers were -necessary to enable the House to judge of the constitutionality of the -Treaty. The friends of the resolution, aware of this, had at last come -forward and assigned a new and a very important reason. It had been now -said, that the House of Representatives have a right to judge over the -heads of the PRESIDENT and Senate on the subject of Treaties; that no -Treaty can become a law until sanctioned by the House; and, in fine, -that the House of Representatives is a constitutional part of the -Treaty-making power. - -If these facts and the principles which grow out of them are true, he -could not say that the resolution was improper; and although he did not -know to what part of the Treaty the papers would particularly apply, -yet, if the House were to take this extensive view of the Treaty, and -ultimately to sanction or reject it, it would seem that the papers -relating to the negotiation ought to be laid before them. But if these -facts are not true, and the House is not a constitutional part of the -Treaty-making power, and the Treaty is already a law without its -sanction, then the reason falls to the ground, and the resolution ought -to be rejected. - -This inquiry into the powers of the House of Representatives must be -confined, and the question arising out of it must be decided by a fair -construction of the constitution. The powers of each branch of the -Government are there limited and defined, and an accurate understanding -of that instrument would enable gentlemen to decide the question. - -In comparing these questions with the constitution, gentlemen were not, -however, to inquire whether that constitution was a good or a bad one; -whether too much power had been given to this or to that branch of the -Government. The question will only be, what powers has the constitution -given, and to what departments have the same been distributed? - -To render the subject as clear and distinct as possible, he thought it -would not be improper to take an abstract view of those two powers in -all governments having foreign relations which are immediately connected -with the inquiry, viz: the Legislative and the Treaty-making power. And -if gentlemen can clearly fix in their minds the limits of each, they -will become better enabled to see their operation, and to decide on the -powers of the House in the exercise of them. - -The Legislative power in all governments is extremely broad; it occupies -the most extensive ground; it extends to every object which relates to -the internal concerns of the nation; it regulates the life, the liberty, -and the property of every individual living within its jurisdiction; it -can control commerce within its jurisdiction; govern the conduct of the -nation towards aliens, in whatever capacity they may appear; and, in -short, as certain English writers have said of the British Government, -its power is almost omnipotent. Thus broad and extensive are the general -powers of legislation, subject, however, to such particular restrictions -as are prescribed by forms of government, or which occasionally arise -from the nature of government itself, and limit the objects of its -operation. - -It is easy to see, that in the exercise of these Legislative powers, it -will frequently happen that laws are enacted, which, in their operation, -will embarrass the intercourse of two nations. Such are always the -effect of retaliating laws, and aliens within the limits of a foreign -jurisdiction are frequently, by those regulations, subjected to great -and unreasonable embarrassments. - -The Treaty-making power operates in a very different manner; its power -is limited and confined to the forming of Treaties with foreign nations; -its objects are to facilitate the intercourse between nations; to remove -by contract, those impediments which embarrass that intercourse, and to -place the same on a fair and just foundation. In the exercise of this -power, it will unavoidably happen that the laws of the Legislature are -sometimes infracted. The Legislature, for certain causes,--perhaps to -compel a foreign nation to form a treaty on terms of reciprocity,--may -prohibit all intercourse, or embarrass that intercourse with regulations -so burdensome as to produce the same effect; the foreign nation finally -becomes willing to treat, and to establish an intercourse on equitable -terms. If, in this case, the Treaty power cannot touch the laws of the -Legislature, the object which gave rise to those very laws can never be -attained; no Treaty can be formed, because it will oppose existing laws; -those laws cannot be repealed, because the object for which they were -enacted has not been attained. Such a construction of the Treaty power -would defeat every object for which that power was established; and -instead of possessing an authority to remove embarrassments in a foreign -intercourse, it cannot touch them; and, although expressly created for -the attainment of a single object, it can never attain it. - -From these considerations, he contended that, in the exercise of that -power which related to the intercourse with foreign nations, the -Treaty-making was paramount to the Legislative power; and that the -positive institutions of the Legislature must give place to compact. - -On this construction, a perfect harmony is introduced into the -departments of Government. Both the Legislative and the Treaty power are -necessary, on many occasions, to accomplish the same objects. The -Legislative power to establish regulations, or declare war, for the -purpose of compelling a nation to agree to a reasonable compact; and the -Treaty power, when that nation is compelled to agree to such reasonable -compact, to remove by Treaty those very regulations, and the war itself, -on fair and equitable terms. - -Mr. MADISON said, that the direct proposition before the House, had been -so absorbed by the incidental question which had grown out of it, -concerning the constitutional authority of Congress in the case of -Treaties, that he should confine his present observations to the latter. - -The true question, therefore, before the committee, was, not whether the -will of the people expressed in the constitution was to be obeyed, but -how that will was to be understood; in what manner it had actually -divided the powers delegated to the Government; and what construction -would best reconcile the several parts of the instrument with each -other, and be most consistent with its general spirit and object. - -On comparing the several passages in the constitution, which had been -already cited to the committee, it appeared, that if taken literally, -and without limit, they must necessarily clash with each other. Certain -powers to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise armies, to borrow -money, &c., are first specially vested in Congress. The power of making -Treaties, which may relate to the same subjects, is afterwards vested in -the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate; and it is declared in -another place, that the constitution and the Laws of the United States, -made in pursuance thereof, and Treaties made, or to be made under the -authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. -And the judges, in every State, shall be bound thereby, any thing in the -constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. - -The term _supreme_, as applied to Treaties, evidently meant a supremacy -over the State constitutions and laws, and not over the Constitution and -Laws of the United States. And it was observable, that the judicial -authority, and the existing laws, alone of the States, fell within the -supremacy expressly enjoined. The injunction was not extended to the -Legislative authority of the States, or to laws requisite to be passed -by the States for giving effect to Treaties; and it might be a problem -worthy of the consideration, though not needing the decision of the -committee, in what manner the requisite provisions were to be obtained -from the States. - -It was to be regretted, he observed, that on a question of such -magnitude as the present, there should be any apparent inconsistency or -inexplicitness in the constitution, that could leave room for different -constructions. As the case, however, had happened, all that could be -done was to examine the different constructions with accuracy and -fairness, according to the rules established therefor, and to adhere to -that which should be found most rational, consistent, and satisfactory. - -He stated the five following, as all the constructions, worthy of -notice, that had either been contended for, or were likely to occur: - -I. The Treaty power, and the Congressional power, might be regarded as -moving in such separate orbits, and operating on such separate objects, -as to be incapable of interfering with, or touching each other. - -II. As concurrent powers relating to the same objects; and operating -like the power of Congress, and the power of the State Legislatures, in -relation to taxes, on the same articles. - -III. As each of them supreme over the other as it may be the last -exercised; like the different assemblies of the people, under the Roman -Government, in the form of centuries, and in the form of tribes. - -IV. The Treaty power may be viewed, according to the doctrine maintained -by the opponents of the proposition before the committee, as both -unlimited in its objects, and completely paramount in its authority. - -V. The Congressional power may be viewed as co-operative with the Treaty -power, on the Legislative subjects submitted to Congress by the -constitution, in the manner explained by the member from Pennsylvania -(Mr. GALLATIN) and exemplified in the British Government. - -The objection to the first construction is, that it would narrow too -much the Treaty power, to exclude from Treaties altogether the -enumerated subjects submitted to the power of Congress; some or other of -this class of regulations being generally comprised in the important -compacts which take place between nations. - -The objection to the second is, that a concurrent exercise of the Treaty -and Legislative powers, on the same objects, would be evidently -impracticable. In the case of taxes laid both by Congress and by the -State Legislatures on the same articles, the constitution presumed, that -the concurrent authorities might be exercised with such prudence and -moderation as would avoid an interference between their respective -regulations. But it was manifest that such an interference would be -unavoidable between the Treaty power and the power of Congress. A Treaty -of Commerce, for example, would rarely be made, that would not trench on -existing legal regulations, as well as be a bar to future ones. - -To the third, the objection was equally fatal. That it involved the -absurdity of an _imperium in imperio_, of two powers, both of them -supreme, yet each of them liable to be superseded by the other. There -was, indeed, an instance of this kind found in the government of ancient -Rome, where the two authorities of the _comitia curiata_, or meetings by -centuries, and the _comitia tributa_, or meetings by tribes, were each -possessed of the supreme Legislative power, and could each annul the -proceedings of the other. For, although the people composed the body of -the meetings in both cases, yet, as they voted in one, according to -wealth, and in the other, according to numbers, the organizations were -so distinct as to create, in fact, two distinct authorities. But it was -not necessary to dwell on this political phenomenon, which had been -celebrated as a subject of curious speculation only, and not as a model -for the institutions of any other country. - -The fourth construction, is that which is contended for by the opponents -of the proposition depending; and which gives to the Treaty power all -the latitude which is not necessarily prohibited by a regard to the -general form and fundamental principles of the constitution. - -In order to smooth the way for this doctrine, it had been said that the -power to make Treaties was laid down in the most indefinite terms; and -that the power to make laws, was no limitation to it, because the two -powers were essentially different in their nature. If there was -ingenuity in this distinction, it was all the merit it could have; for -it must be obvious that it could neither be reduced to practice, nor be -reconciled to principles. Treaties and laws, whatever the nature of them -may be, must, in their operation, be often the same. Regulations by -Treaty, if carried into effect, are laws. If Congress pass acts relating -to provisions in a Treaty, so as to become incorporated with the Treaty, -they are not the less laws on that account. A Legislative act is the -same whether performed by this or that body, or whether it be grounded -on the consideration, that a foreign nation agrees to pass a like act, -or on any other consideration. - -It must be objected to this construction, therefore, that it extends the -power of the PRESIDENT and Senate too far, and cramps the powers of -Congress too much. - -He did not admit that the term "Treaty" had the extensive and unlimited -meaning which some seemed to claim for it. It was to be considered as a -technical term, and its meaning was to be sought for in the use of it, -particularly in governments which bore most analogy to our own. In -absolute governments, where the whole power of the nation is usurped by -the governments, and all the departments of power are united in the same -person, the Treaty power has no bounds; because the power of the -sovereign to execute it has none. In limited governments, the case is -different; the Treaty power, if undefined, is not understood to be -unlimited. In Great Britain, it is positively restrained on the subjects -of money and dismembering the empire. Nor could the Executive there, if -his recollection was right, make an alien a subject by means of a -Treaty. - -But the question immediately under consideration, and which the context -and spirit of the constitution must decide, turned on the extent of the -Treaty power in relation to the objects; specifically and expressly -submitted to the Legislative power of Congress. - -It was an important, and appeared to him to be a decisive, view of the -subject, that if the Treaty power alone could perform any one act for -which the authority of Congress is required by the constitution, it may -perform every act for which the authority of that part of the Government -is required. Congress have power to regulate trade, to declare war, to -raise armies, to levy, to borrow, and to appropriate money, &c. If, by -Treaty, therefore, as paramount to the Legislative power, the PRESIDENT -and Senate can regulate trade, they can also declare war, they can raise -armies to carry on war, and they can procure money to support armies. -These powers, however different in their nature or importance, are on -the same footing in the constitution, and must share the same fate. A -member from Connecticut (Mr. GRISWOLD) had admitted that the power of -war was exclusively vested in Congress; but he had not attempted, nor -did it seem possible, to draw any line between that and the other -enumerated powers. If any line could be drawn, it ought to be presented -to the committee; and he should, for one, be ready to give it the most -impartial consideration. He had not, however, any expectation that such -an attempt could succeed; and, therefore, should submit to the serious -consideration of the committee, that, although the constitution had -carefully and jealously lodged the power of war, of armies, of the -purse, &c. in Congress, of which the immediate Representatives of the -people formed an integral part, yet, according to the construction -maintained on the other side, the PRESIDENT and Senate, by means of a -Treaty of Alliance with a nation at war, might make the United States -parties in the war. They might stipulate subsidies, and even borrow -money to pay them; they might furnish troops to be carried to Europe, -Asia, or Africa; they might even attempt to keep up a standing army in -time of peace, for the purpose of co-operating, on given contingencies, -with an ally, for mutual safety or other common objects. Under this -aspect the Treaty power would be tremendous indeed. - -The force of this reasoning is not obviated by saying, that the -PRESIDENT and Senate would only pledge the public faith, and that the -agency of Congress would be necessary to carry it into operation. For, -what difference does this make, if the obligation imposed be, as is -alleged, a constitutional one; if Congress have no will but to obey, and -if to disobey be treason and rebellion against the constituted -authorities? Under a constitutional obligation with such sanctions to -it, Congress, in case the PRESIDENT and Senate should enter into an -alliance for war, would be nothing more than the mere heralds for -proclaiming it. In fact, it had been said that they must obey the -injunctions of a Treaty, as implicitly as a subordinate officer in the -Executive line was bound to obey the Chief Magistrate, or as the Judges -are bound to decide according to the laws. - -As a further objection to the doctrine contended for, he called the -attention of the committee to another very serious consequence from it. -The specific powers, as vested in Congress by the constitution, are -qualified by sundry exceptions, deemed of great importance to the safe -exercise of them. These restrictions are contained in section 9 of the -constitution, and in the articles of amendment which have been added to -it. Thus, the "migration or importation of such persons as any of the -States shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by -Congress." He referred to several of the other restrictive paragraphs -which followed, particularly the 5th, which says, that no tax shall be -laid on exports, no preference given to ports of one State over those of -another, &c. It was Congress, also, he observed, which was to make no -law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free -exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; -or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, &c. Now, if the -Legislative powers, specifically vested in Congress, are to be no -limitation or check to the Treaty power, it was evident that the -exceptions to those powers could be no limitation or check to the Treaty -power. - -Returning to the powers particularly lodged in Congress, he took notice -of those relating to war, and money, or the sword and the purse, as -requiring a few additional observations, in order to show that the -Treaty power could not be paramount over them. - -It was well known that, with respect to the regulation of commerce, it -had long remained under the jurisdiction of the States; and that in the -establishment of the present Government the question was, whether, and -how far, it should be transferred to the general jurisdiction. But with -respect to the power of making war, it had, from the commencement of the -Revolution, been judged and exercised as a branch of the general -authority, essential to the public safety. The only question, therefore, -that could arise, was whether the power should be lodged in this or that -department of the Federal Government. And we find it expressly vested in -the Legislative, and not in the Executive department; with a view, no -doubt, to guard it against the abuses which might be apprehended, from -placing the power of declaring war in those hands which would conduct it -when declared; and which, therefore, in the ordinary course of things, -would be most tempted to go into war. But, according to the doctrine now -maintained, the United States, by means of an alliance with a foreign -power, might be driven into a state of war by the PRESIDENT and Senate, -contrary both to a sense of the Legislature, and to the letter and -spirit of the constitution. - -On the subject, also, of appropriating money, particularly to a military -establishment, the provision of the constitution demanded the most -severe attention. To prevent the continuance of a military force for a -longer term than might be indispensable, it is expressly declared, that -no appropriation for the support of armies shall be made for more than -two years. So that, at the end of every two years, the question, whether -a military force ought to be continued or not, must be open for -consideration; and can be decided in the negative, by either the House -of Representatives or the Senate's refusing to concur in the requisite -appropriations. This is a most important check and security against the -danger of standing armies, and against the prosecution of a war beyond -its rational objects; and the efficacy of the precaution is the greater, -as, at the end of every two years a re-election of the House of -Representatives gives the people an opportunity of judging on the -occasion for themselves. But if, as is contended, the House of -Representatives have no right to deliberate on appropriations pledged by -the PRESIDENT and Senate, and cannot refuse them, without a breach of -the constitution and of their oaths, the case is precisely the same, and -the same effects would follow, as if the appropriation were not limited -to two years, but made for the whole period contemplated, at once. Where -would be the check of a biennial appropriation for a military -establishment raised for four years, if, at the end of two years, the -appropriation was to be continued by a constitutional necessity for two -years more? It is evident that no real difference can exist between an -appropriation for four years at once, and two appropriations for two -years each, the second of which, the two Houses would be -constitutionally obliged to make. - -It had been said that, in all cases, a law must either be repealed, or -its execution provided for. Whatever respect might be due to this -principle in general, he denied that it could be applicable to the case -in question. By the provision of the constitution, limiting -appropriations to two years, it was clearly intended to enable either -branch of the Legislature to discontinue a military force at the end of -every two years. If the law establishing it must be necessarily repealed -before an appropriation could be withheld, it would be in the power of -either branch to keep up an establishment by refusing to concur in -repeal. The construction and reasoning, therefore, opposed to the rights -of the House, would evidently defeat an essential provision of the -constitution. - -The constitution of the United States is a constitution of limitations -and checks. The powers given up by the people for the purposes of -Government, had been divided into two great classes. One of these formed -the State Governments; the other, the Federal Government. The powers of -the Government had been further divided into three great departments; -and the Legislative department again subdivided into two independent -branches. Around each of these portions of power were seen also -exceptions and qualifications, as additional guards against the abuses -to which power is liable. With a view to this policy of the -constitution, it could not be unreasonable, if the clauses under -discussion were thought doubtful, to lean towards a construction that -would limit and control the Treaty-making power, rather than towards one -that would make it omnipotent. - -He came next to the fifth construction, which left with the PRESIDENT -and Senate the power of making Treaties, but required at the same time -the Legislative sanction and co-operation, in those cases where the -constitution had given express and specific powers to the Legislature. -It was to be presumed, that in all such cases the Legislature would -exercise its authority with discretion, allowing due weight to the -reasons which led to the Treaty, and to the circumstances of the -existence of the Treaty. Still, however, this House, in its Legislative -capacity, must exercise its reason: it must deliberate; for deliberation -is implied in legislation. If it must carry all Treaties into effect, it -would no longer exercise a Legislative power; it would be the mere -instrument of the will of another department, and would have no will of -its own. Where the constitution contains a specific and peremptory -injunction on Congress to do a particular act, Congress must, of course, -do the act, because the constitution, which is paramount over all the -departments, has expressly taken away the Legislative discretion of -Congress. The case is essentially different where the act of one -department of Government interferes with a power expressly vested in -another, and nowhere expressly taken away: here the latter power must be -exercised according to its nature; and if it be a Legislative power, it -must be exercised with that deliberation and discretion which is -essential to the nature of Legislative power. - -Mr. W. SMITH (of South Carolina) said, he would not at that time go into -an extensive review of the arguments of the gentleman from Virginia, -(Mr. MADISON,) but would only notice some points which he had dwelt on. -Before he went into a consideration of the subject, he would call the -attention of the committee to the true question now before them; for -though it was originally only a call for papers, it had now assumed a -very important shape, and was nothing less than this, Whether that House -had a concurrent power with the PRESIDENT and Senate in making Treaties? -The gentleman last up had followed others in referring to the practice -under the British constitution; but had concluded his remarks on that -argument with allowing, that, after all, our own constitution must be -our sole guide. He heartily joined in that sentiment, and was satisfied -that the merits of the question should be tested by that alone. In order -to show that the Treaty power was solely delegated to the PRESIDENT and -Senate by the constitution, Mr. S. said, he should not confine himself -to a mere recital of the words, but he should appeal to the general -sense of the whole nation at the time the constitution was formed, -before any Treaty was made under it, which could, by exciting passion -and discontent, warp the mind from a just and natural construction of -the constitution. By referring to the contemporaneous expositions of -that instrument, when the subject was viewed only in relation to the -abstract power, and not to a particular Treaty, we should come at the -truth. He would then confidently appeal to the opinions of those who, -when the constitution was promulgated, were alarmed at the Treaty power, -because it was by the constitution vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate, -and to its advocates, who vindicated it by proving that the power was -safely deposited with these branches of the Government. The discussions -which took place at the time of its adoption by the Convention of the -several States, proved, beyond a doubt, that the full extent of the -power was then well understood, and thought, by those who approved of -the constitution, to be sufficiently guarded. He would further appeal to -the amendments which had been proposed by the discontented. The -Convention of Virginia had proposed an amendment, which of itself -overturned all the reasonings of the gentleman. It was, "that no -commercial Treaty should be valid, unless ratified by two-thirds of all -the Senators." This was the only check which that State required, and -was a conclusive evidence of their opinions: had that State conceived -that the check which is now contended for existed in the constitution, -they could not have been guilty of such an absurdity as the amendment -would involve. All the possible dangers which might ensue from the -unlimited nature of the Treaty power were well considered before the -constitution was adopted, and Virginia required no further check than -the one above recited. All, therefore, that they required had, in the -present case, been done, for the Treaty was ratified by two-thirds of -all the Senators. - -Mr. S. said, he could refer to many further proofs derived from a -similar source. He would not, however, fatigue the committee at this -time with reading them. He would only recall the recollection of some -gentlemen present to the protest of the Pennsylvania minority, where the -same ideas and amendments were contained, and to the proceedings of a -meeting at Harrisburg, which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. -GALLATIN) must well remember, (having been one of the meeting,) where, -after stating objections to the extensive powers delegated by the -constitution, the following amendment was proposed, as necessary to -limit and restrain the powers: "Provided always, that no Treaty which -shall hereafter be made, shall be deemed or construed to alter or affect -any law of the United States, or of any particular State, until such -Treaty shall have been laid before and assented to by the House of -Representatives in Congress." This amendment was the most satisfactory -evidence that the proposers of it did then believe that, without that -amendment, such Treaty would be valid and binding, although not assented -to by this House, and that they had, at that day, no idea that there -existed in the constitution the check which is now discovered by this -_ex post facto_ construction. - -Having stated the general opinion of the public, as manifested by the -friends as well as the enemies of the constitution, Mr. S. said he would -proceed to show that the practice of Congress had, from the commencement -of its existence, been conformable to that opinion. Several treaties had -been concluded with Indian tribes under the present constitution. These -Treaties embraced all the points which were now made a subject of -contest--settlement of boundaries, grants of money, &c.; when ratified -by the PRESIDENT and Senate, they had been proclaimed by the Executive -as the law of the land; they had not even been communicated to the -House; but the House, considering them as laws, had made the -appropriations as matters of course, and as they did in respect to other -laws. The Treaties were never discussed, but the requisite sums, as -reported in the annual estimates, were included, as matters of course, -in the general mass of moneys voted for the War Establishment in the -item of Indian Department. It was not pretended that the constitution -made any distinction between Treaties with foreign nations and Indian -tribes; and the clause of the constitution which gives to Congress the -power of regulating commerce with foreign nations, and on which the -modern doctrine is founded, includes as well Indian tribes as foreign -nations. - -That this House considered a Treaty, when ratified by the PRESIDENT and -Senate, as the law of the land, was further evident from a resolve of -the House, of the 4th of June, 1790, in these words; - - "_Resolved_, That all Treaties made, or which shall be made - and promulged under the authority of the United States, - shall from time to time be published and annexed to their - code of laws, by the Secretary of State." - -In consequence of this resolution, the several Secretaries of State had -annexed the Treaties which had been made to the code of laws, as soon as -they were ratified by the PRESIDENT and Senate, and promulged by the -PRESIDENT. - -Mr. S. repeated his former assertion, that there were cases where that -House had not the right of withholding appropriations; if they had the -power, indeed, they might stop the proceedings of Government altogether; -and so, individuals had the power of resisting the laws. Gentlemen had -said, that if this doctrine prevailed, the House would lose its capacity -of judging. He denied it; they would still retain, in such cases, a -discretion, guided by morality, good faith, and the constitution; the -members were as much bound by the laws in their Legislative, as in their -individual capacity; if an existing law (or Treaty, which was a law of -the highest nature) prescribed a certain duty, they were bound to -perform it, and their discretion could only be called in to regulate the -mode and circumstances of discharging that duty; it could not be a -matter of discretion whether or not they should perform that duty. Thus, -unless they intended to arrest the operations of Government, their -discretion could not be requisite to determine whether they should -appropriate the moneys necessary for its support; but out of what fund, -and when the moneys shall be paid, and other matters of detail. So, when -a Treaty was concluded, and became a compact binding the nation, the -discretion of the House (unless it was intended to violate our faith) -could not determine whether the moneys contracted for should be paid, -but the mode, the fund, and such questions of detail, would alone be -considered. The distinction, which was an obvious one, between power and -right, had not been attended to. The House had certainly the power to do -many things which they had not the right to do; they had the power to do -wrong, but they certainly had not the right to do wrong; and whether the -wrong was committed by acting where they ought not to act, or refusing -to act where they ought, was immaterial; both were equally -reprehensible. It had been boldly said, that there was no case which -could possibly come before them, where they would not be at liberty to -answer aye or no: he would produce a case--by the constitution, on the -application of a certain number of States, wishing for amendments, -Congress must call a Convention; where is this boasted discretion, of -which so much has been said? Could the House, in this case, exercise its -discretion, whether or no a Convention should be called? Why not? -Because the constitution says it must call a Convention: and does not -the constitution say, "Treaties made by the PRESIDENT and Senate are -laws, and that laws must be obeyed?" The same injunctions of the -constitution are imposed in both cases; and as in the first, all this -House could do, would be to regulate the time and place of holding the -Convention; so, in the latter, their discretion would be limited to the -mode, and fund, and other details. The gentleman had mentioned the -article in the constitution respecting appropriations for military -services--they were to be limited to two years; this article proved -itself that appropriations might be unlimited in every other case. When -a Military Establishment was instituted, it was known that an -appropriation law for that purpose could not be in force more than two -years; no inconvenience, then, could result. But there was no such -limitation in respect to any other branch of expenditure; from custom, -appropriations for the support of Government were annual; appropriations -even for pensions were annual, and yet no one doubted that, as the -pension was a contract, the appropriation for it was always a thing of -course; no discretion could be exercised, in respect to the payment, -without a breach of faith. - -MARCH 11.--In Committee of the Whole, on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution. - -Mr. GILES said, he expected, when the present motion was made, that it -would not be opposed. The expected agency of the House respecting the -Treaty, or some subjects relating to it, made him imagine that the -propriety of having the papers called for could not be denied. The -Treaty has been referred to a Committee of the Whole, surely in order to -act on it in some shape or other. Indeed, the PRESIDENT, in his Speech, -at the opening of the session, expressly says, that he will lay the -subject before them. This he considered as full evidence, that the -PRESIDENT conceived it must come under the notice of the House. If the -papers could serve to explain any point relative to that instrument, -surely the possession of them was desirable. - -The right of the House to consider of the expediency of Treaties, so far -as the provisions of them clash with their specific powers, had been -indirectly brought in in considering the present motion. He regretted -that this important constitutional question should be about to be -decided indirectly; but, this being the situation of the debate, he -should state his reasons why he conceived the argument on this ground -ought not to be considered as of sufficient strength to cause a negative -of the motion before the committee. - -The question is, whether there be any provisions in the constitution by -which this House can in any case check the Treaty-making power; and, of -consequence, whether it can question the merits of Treaties under any -circumstances? - -Various considerations had been advanced to show that the House cannot -question the merits of a Treaty. Some of these considerations had grown -out of the subject extrinsically, others from the provisions of the -constitution. Though at first he had intended to have stated simply his -own opinion of the constitution on the important question now in view, -yet, as gentlemen had gone fully into the question in that shape, and -others had stated a variety of objections to the construction the -friends of the motion contended for, he should proceed to answer them, -and suffer his opinion of the meaning of the constitution to be -incidental. - -The gentleman from South Carolina had referred to the opinions of the -Conventions of the States at the time of adopting the constitution. As -to Virginia, the gentleman had stated that that State had considered the -checks as provided by the constitution as inadequate, and proposed an -amendment, purporting to require two-thirds of the whole number of -Senators, instead of two-thirds of the number present. This was true, he -believed; but how would it apply in the sense the gentleman wished? The -objection of that State was, that the check in the Senate, provided in -the Treaty-making power, was not sufficient, and they proposed a -greater: from which he would argue that they conceived the Treaty-making -power to be a subject of extreme delicacy, and that they wished -additional checks consequently added. How this was to prove that the -Convention of Virginia did not construe the present clauses of the -constitution under debate as the friends of the present motion did, he -was at a loss to determine. The gentleman who cited this instance had -not quoted any part of the proceeding on the subject, or of the reasons -that led to the amendment. He had merely mentioned the result to the -House. - -The practice of the House had been referred to yesterday by the member -last up, (Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina.) He had remarked that the House -had passed a general resolution directing the Clerk to place in the code -of laws of the United States Treaties made under the authority of the -United States. Was this, he asked, an exposition of the meaning of the -constitution? He believed the resolution a very proper one, and would -vote now for its adoption, if it was yet to be passed. It is certainly -proper, when a Treaty is concluded under the authority of the United -States, that it should be annexed to their code of laws; but this could -not weigh against the exercise of discretion in the House on important -Legislative subjects. - -The practice of the House, with respect to appropriation laws, in the -cases of Indian Treaties, had been mentioned by the member from South -Carolina. In the first place, observing upon this, he would remark, that -he always conceived there was a distinction between an Indian Treaty and -a Treaty with a foreign nation. The English had always made a -distinction when we were Colonies. The constitution establishes an -express difference. He should not, however, found his objections to the -inference of the gentleman upon this, but would examine it unconnected -with this distinction. Provisions had been made by this House to carry -Indian Treaties into effect; but why? No doubt because the House -conceived it wise so to do, not because they had not a right to use -their discretion in the business. Suppose, on any of those occasions, a -motion had been made to strike out the sum proposed to be appropriated, -would it have been said that the motion was out of order? A similar -motion was made lately with respect to the Mint, and it was not -considered as out of order. If, on that occasion, it had been the -opinion of the House that the Mint was an improper establishment, by -refusing the appropriation they could have defeated the law. It was -certainly the opinion of the House that they could exercise their -discretion in the business, for it was not even hinted that the motion -for striking out was out of order. - -On another head the gentleman appeared to plume himself much. He had -asked, why, since the PRESIDENT had proclaimed a Treaty as the law of -the land, which was not the law of the land, why he was not impeached? -This question, the member exultingly remarked, had not been answered, -because, he imagined, it could not be answered. - -Suppose I should tell the gentleman, said Mr. G., that I could not now -give him an answer, would it show that the House had not the authority -contended for by the friends of the present motion? Why was the subject -mentioned? Not with a view, I believe, to the discovery of the truth. I -fear it is calculated to produce an opposite effect--to check -investigation. It is too often the case that the names of persons are -brought into view, not to promote the development of principles, but as -having a tendency to destroy freedom of inquiry. I will go further with -the gentleman, and admit for a moment (a position, however, I shall by -and by controvert) that the PRESIDENT conceived that he had a right, -after the exchange of ratifications, to promulgate the Treaty as the -supreme law of the land; what would this amount to? Why, only that this -was his opinion; but is that authority here? In any other case rather -than the present, I should be inclined to pay a greater respect to -opinions from that source; but now, when the question is about the -division of powers between two departments, are we to be told of the -opinions of one of those departments, to show that the other has no -right to the exercise of power in the case. Such appeals are not -calculated to convince, but to alarm. - -Having examined the objections to the construction contended for by the -friends of the motion, drawn from collateral sources, he should turn his -attention next, he said, to the intrinsic meaning of the constitution. -He would attempt to interpret the constitution from the words of it. It -was a misfortune the clauses were not more clear and explicit, so far as -to force the same meaning upon every mind, however they might differ in -opinion in other respects. However, from the imperfection of language, -it was no wonder, he observed, that on an instrument providing for so -many different objects, and providing such a variety of checks, various -opinions as to construction should arise; but he considered the present -clauses of as plain import as any part of the instrument. The -construction contended for by the opposers of the motion is, beyond -denial, the most dangerous in its effects, and the least probable, as he -thought, in its meaning. It is contended by them that the Treaty-making -power is undefined in its nature, unlimited as to its objects, and -supreme in its operation; that the Treaty-making power embraces all the -Legislative powers; operates by controlling all other authorities, and -that it is unchecked. When he had asserted this power, as contended by -the gentlemen to be unlimited in its objects, he meant, however, that -they had confined it only within the limits of the constitution; but -even admitting it in that extent, is certainly a doctrine sufficiently -alarming. When the gentlemen contend for its supremacy, they also admit -in this point some qualifications; according to their doctrine, it is -not to be supreme over the head of the constitution, but in every other -respect they contend that it shall be unlimited, supreme, undefined. -Gentlemen who insist that Treaties are supreme, next to the -constitution, must also grant that there is no necessity for the House -to trouble themselves with making laws. - -The construction contended for by the friends of the resolution is -derived from two sources--from the constitution, and the nature of -things. The constitution says, the PRESIDENT, with the advice and -consent of two-thirds of the Senators present, shall make Treaties. -Perhaps, if there was no other clause, the Treaty-making power might be -considered as unlimited. Another clause declares that the constitution, -the laws made under it, and Treaties, shall be the supreme law of the -land. Here the gentlemen, when they quote this clause, stop, as if there -were no other words in it; and from all this it would appear that the -people had, in fact, delegated an unchecked power. But, if we go on, it -will be found that the last-mentioned clause adds that the judges in the -respective States shall cause them to be executed, any thing in the -constitution or laws of the individual States to the contrary -notwithstanding. From the jealousy which individual States showed under -the Old Confederation for the preservation of their powers, and the -inconveniences which were experienced in consequence, it was found -necessary, when organizing a new Government, to declare, explicitly, -that their constitutions and laws must yield to the _Constitution_, -_laws_ and _Treaties_ of the United States, and for this purpose this -clause was introduced. - -The checks on the Treaty-making power he considered as divisible into -two classes; the first, consists in the necessary concurrence of the -House to give efficacy to Treaties; which concurrent power they derive -from the enumeration of the Legislative powers of the House. Where the -Treaty-making power is exercised, it must be under the reservation, that -its provisions, so far as they interfere with the specified powers -delegated to Congress, must be so far submitted to the discretion of -that department of the Government. The PRESIDENT and Senate, by the -constitution, have the power of making Treaties, Congress the power of -regulating commerce, raising armies, &c.; and these, he contended, must -form so many exceptions to the general power. Gentlemen had said that -the constitution was the exposition of the will of the people, and, as -such, that they would obey its injunctions. There could be no difference -of opinion on this ground; for his own part, he confessed if he adored -any thing on earth, it is that will. But the question is, what is that -will, as expressed in the constitution? That instrument, to his mind, -explained this question very clearly. It enumerates certain powers which -it declares specifically vested in Congress; and where is the danger to -be apprehended from the doctrine laid down by the friends of the -resolution? The contrary construction must produce the most pernicious -consequences; agreeably to that, there would remain no check over the -most unlimited power in the Government. The gentlemen contend, that the -House must remain silent spectators in the business of a Treaty, and -that they have no right to the exercise of an opinion in the matter; -they must then abandon their constitutional right of legislation; they -must abandon the constitution and cling to Treaties as supreme. - -The other check over the Treaty-making power, he noticed, was the power -of making appropriations, the exercise of which is specifically vested -in Congress. He begged leave to call the particular attention of the -committee to this part of the subject. The constitution says, that no -money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of -appropriations made by law. This is no doubt intended as a check in -addition to those possessed by the House. It is meant to enable the -House, without the concurrence of the other branches, to check, by -refusing money, any mischief in the operations carrying on in any -department of the Government. But what is a law? It is a rule prescribed -by competent authority. The word law in the clause of the constitution -he had last noticed, was not meant in reference to the Treaty-making -power; but in reference to Congress. A law prescribes a rule of conduct; -it is the expression of the will of the proper authority; it is the -result of discretion. Legislation implies deliberation. If a law is the -expression of the will, must not an appropriation law be equally so? But -gentlemen had found out a new-fashioned exposition of the word -discretion, and, according to their definition in fact, it was no -discretion at all. They had mentioned a part of the constitution which -provides that the salaries of the Judicial Department shall be fixed; -and asked, whether the House should conceive itself at liberty to use a -discretion in appropriations for that department? Before he could -consider this case, and that before the House, now parallel, he must beg -gentlemen would point out any part of the constitution that declared the -House should not exercise their discretion when called upon to make -appropriations to carry into effect a Treaty. He could find nowhere, -that, in this case, the right of opinion of the House is constrained. - -The uniform practice of the British Government had been cited to have -been, in the case of Treaties, the same as that contended for by the -friends of the present motion. The greatest security for the liberties -of the people established in that Government, depends on the control -which their Parliament has over the purse-strings. In England, this -power rests merely on custom; here, the House are expressly intrusted -with it; what is custom in England, is reduced to writing in our -constitution. Then, if this power is in England a ground for Parliament -to judge of Treaties, it is a fair inference that it ought to be -exercised here. The practice of the British Government, he observed, had -often been quoted here, in support of doctrines very different from -those in aid of which it is now cited; it has been deemed orthodox when -it favored Executive prerogative. He confessed, he never did expect -that, as early as 1796, a reference would be made to practices, under -the British Government, in support of the rights of the popular branch -of our Government. It was painful to be obliged to have resort to that -Government on such an occasion; but the authority of that Government -should not be rejected for once, because its practice could be quoted in -favor of the popular branch. The ground of the practice in England, and -of the right claimed here, rests upon the sound maxim, that all public -money is from the pockets of the people, and that it should be expended -by none but their Representatives. No maxim had been more instrumental -than this, in preserving the remnants of British freedom; and thus early -is the House called upon to abandon it here. - -Treaties are contended to be paramount to the laws; the PRESIDENT and -Senate make these Treaties, and when made and proclaimed as the supreme -law, there is a predestinated necessity in the House to make the -requisite provisions for carrying them into effect. The danger of this -doctrine, he said, could not be better exemplified, than by a reference -to the circumstances that attended the late Treaty in its progress. -Three years ago, a difference took place between the different branches -of Government, as to the policy that should obtain in reference to the -conduct of one foreign nation. The House were unwilling to trust solely -to the magnanimity of the King, and wished to make some exertions -themselves for self-protection. With this view several measures were -proposed, viz: commercial restrictions, non-importation, embargo, -sequestration, or rather arrestation upon the ground of the _status -quo_. One of the measures passed the House by a respectable majority, -but was rejected in the Senate by the casting vote of the VICE -PRESIDENT. The PRESIDENT appointed an Envoy Extraordinary, who entered -into certain stipulations, which, being sanctioned by two-thirds of the -Senate, it is now contended, are to operate the destruction of the -powers specifically vested in the House. - -If the above was a true statement, he said, and he did not see in what -particular it could be contradicted, then the Executive had been exerted -as a check upon the Legislative power, for the negotiation necessarily -foreclosed any further Legislative proceedings. It did more than this; -the Executive legislated against legislation, and overruled them on the -subject in contest. He should not advert at this time, he said, to the -collateral circumstances which attended this business, nor go further in -detail; he wished only to remark generally on the dangerous operation of -the doctrines contended for. Now, it is said, the House have nothing to -do but to obey, to appropriate the necessary money, leaving all -deliberation aside. - -If the PRESIDENT, said Mr. GILES, can, by the assistance of a foreign -power, legislate against the rights of the House to legislate, and his -proceedings are to be binding on the House, it necessarily destroys -their right to the exercise of discretion. If he can by Treaty declare, -that commerce shall not be regulated, that property shall not be -sequestrated, and that piracies shall be judged and punished as he -thinks fit; if he is to exercise the unlimited Treaty-making power -contended for, what security have we that he may not go further when the -negotiations are renewed with Great Britain, agreeably to the -stipulations of the present Treaty? What security have we that he will -not agree with Great Britain, that if she will keep up an army of ten -thousand men in Canada, he will do the same here? How could such a -stipulation be got over by the House, when they are told that in matters -of Treaty they must not pretend to exercise their will, but must obey? -How will this doctrine operate upon the power of appropriation? A -military establishment may be instituted for twenty years, and as their -moral sense is to prevent their withholding appropriations, they can -have no power over its existence. - -Gentlemen had gone so far as to declare, that an attempt to examine the -merits of the Treaty was rebellion, was treason against the -constitution. What justifies these harsh epithets? Such assertions could -only create ill-will, and could not tend to the investigation of truth. -Another argument of the same nature had been used. It was said, that the -attempt at exercising a control over the Treaty-making power was -disorganizing the Government. He believed the contrary would be found to -be the case. The doctrine advocated by the friends to the motion, only -goes to claim a negative voice in the business of Treaty-making; whereas -the doctrine of its opposers claims the exercise of a power, that would -supersede the specific authority delegated to the Legislature in all -cases whatever. - -Mr. SEDGWICK said, that, after the length of time which had been -consumed, and the talents which had been so ably exerted in the -discussion of this subject, he should not think himself authorized to -call the attention of the committee to any observations of his; but, -that he considered it in principle, and in its consequences, as the most -important question which had ever been debated in this House. It was no -less than whether this House should, by construction and implication, -extend its controlling influence to subjects which were expressly, and -he thought exclusively, delegated by the people to another department of -the Government. We had heretofore been warned emphatically against -seizing on power by construction and implication. He had known no -instance in which the caution that warning enforced, deserved more -attention than on the present occasion. - -It would be taken for granted, and it would be conceded on all hands, -that we were to resort to the constitution, to know the extent and -limits of our power, and if we found not there a clear evidence of its -existence, we ought to abandon the exercise. It was certain we had not -any express delegation to make or to control the public will in any of -our relations with foreign nations. On the other hand, we found it -declared, that the PRESIDENT should have power to make Treaties by and -with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the -Senators present concurred. Treaties, to attain the ends for which they -were designed, were, from their nature, supreme laws; but the -constitution had, in another place, declared, Treaties made under the -authority of the United States should be supreme laws. Gentlemen had -said, that it was not declared that Treaties made by the PRESIDENT and -Senate should have this effect; but those made under the authority of -the United States. The question then recurred, what Treaties were made -under the authority of the United States? The true answer undoubtedly -was, Treaties made by those to whom the people, by their constitution, -had delegated the power. The PRESIDENT, qualified as had been mentioned, -had expressly, and none else had such power. If we were to rest the -subject here, it would seem to follow irresistibly, and to be incapable -almost of higher proof, that whenever a compact was formed by the -PRESIDENT with a foreign nation, and had received the advice and consent -of the Senate, if it was of such a nature as to be properly denominated -a Treaty, all its stipulations would thereby, and from that moment, -become "supreme laws." - -The power of treating between independent nations might be classed under -the following heads: 1. To compose and adjust differences, whether to -terminate or to prevent war. 2. To form contracts for mutual security or -defence; or to make Treaties, offensive or defensive. 3. To regulate an -intercourse for mutual benefit, or to form Treaties of commerce. Without -the first, war and contention could only be terminated by the -destruction of one of the parties; without the second, there could be no -defence, by means of union and concert, against superior force; and -without the last, a profitable and beneficial intercourse could not be -arranged on terms of reciprocity. Hence, then, it must be evident to -every unprejudiced mind, that by a grant of power to make Treaties, -authority was given to bind the nation by stipulations; to preserve -peace or terminate war; to enter into alliances, offensive and -defensive, and to form commercial Treaties. - -This power, he held, unlimited by the constitution, and he held, too, -that in its nature, to the extent he had mentioned, it was illimitable. -Did a serious difference exist with a foreign nation, in determining on -the nature and extent of the stipulations which might be necessary to -adjust it, the cause of injury, national rights and honor, the evils of -war, and all circumstances of relation between the two countries, must -be taken into account. In forming alliances, the threatened pressure, -your own and your enemy's relative strength, the objects of acquisition -or defence, must be considered. And, in adjusting an equitable -intercourse for commercial purposes, a thousand circumstances present -themselves for nice calculations. A thousand circumstances of foreign -relations would occur in the history of every country, under which -nothing short of unlimited powers of negotiation would be adequate to a -prevention of enormous, perhaps ruinous evils. - -But it might be objected that a power so enormous, and comprehending -such essential interests, might be abused, and thence asked, where is -the remedy? To this he answered, that a national association required, -for the great purpose of preservation, an unlimited confidence on many -subjects. Hence, not only this, but perhaps every other national -government, had delegated to it an unlimited control over the persons -and property of the nation. - -It might, by the express power given to it of raising armies, convert -every citizen into a soldier, and, by a single assessment of a tax, it -might command the use of all the property in the country. - -The power to raise armies and taxes was limited in its exercise by -nothing but the discretion of the Legislature, under the direction of -its prudence, wisdom, and virtue. Was there no security against a wanton -abuse of these enormous powers? Yes, it was to be hoped that the people, -in electing the members of this House, and the States in choosing those -of the other, would not select characters, who, regardless of the public -good, would wantonly impose on their constituents unnecessary burdens. -It would be an additional security, that the interests of the rulers -were inseparably connected with those of the people; that they could -impose no burdens in which themselves did not equally participate. But, -should all these guards be insufficient, was there no dependence to be -placed in the PRESIDENT?--the man elected by a refined process, -pre-eminent in fame and virtue as in rank! Was there no security in the -watchful guardianship of such a character? Responsible by every thing -dear and valuable to man--his reputation, his own and his -fellow-citizens' happiness--was there no well-founded reliance on all -these considerations, for security against oppression? If not, we had -not the requisite materials by which to administer a republican -government, and the project might be abandoned. After all, however, -should the unlimited powers he had mentioned (and such powers must -always be unlimited) be wantonly abused, was there no remedy? Yes, in -the good sense and manly independent spirit of the people. If -intolerable burdens were wantonly imposed; if necessary to defeat the -oppression, opposition and insurrection would not only be authorized, -but become a duty. And if any man could honestly lay his hand on his -heart, and in sincerity declare, that a compliance with any existing -Treaty was worth more than our Government, our constitution, our Union, -and the liberty protected by them; to that man he was ready to declare, -that opposition had become a duty. But, in every instance of opposition, -whether in defeat of a Legislative act, or of a Treaty, the right of -resistance resulted not from the constitution itself, for it had -declared no such right; no constitution could declare it. It existed in -original principles, and never could be exercised but by resorting to -them. - -The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) had stated five different -constructions which possibly might be given to the constitution on this -subject; three of which, (and for none of them to Mr. S.'s knowledge had -any man ever contended,) the gentleman had proved to be unfounded. The -fourth, that which he had given to the constitution, if admitted, and it -should be abused, might produce mischievous effects. Was not this true -of all the great and essential powers of government? If the controlling -influence of this House was added, would the power be less? And if, -under these circumstances, abused, would the injury be more tolerable? -In short, was not this a kind of argument infinitely more tending to the -production of prejudice than to the discovery of truth? - -The gentleman has really given no decisive opinion what was the true -construction. He had, however, seemed to incline to a belief that to the -stipulations of a Treaty relative to any subject committed to the -control of the Legislature, to give them validity, Legislative -co-operation was necessary. Of consequence, if this was withheld, the -operation of the Treaty would be defeated. That it was at the will, and -within the discretion, of the Legislature to withhold such co-operation, -and of course the House might control and defeat the solemn engagements -of the PRESIDENT and Senate. - -The gentleman who had suggested this opinion was well known to the -committee, and throughout America. Mr. S. could not but observe that it -was perfectly unaccountable to his mind, that that gentleman had yet to -form an opinion to whom was delegated that power, the nature, extent, -and effects of which he had so strongly and perspicuously detailed. The -capacity of that gentleman's mind, long exercised on political subjects, -his known caution and prudence, would authorize a request that he or his -friends would explain how it was possible, if such as he states should -have been the intention of those who framed the constitution, that the -true meaning should not have been expressed in the instrument? That when -the gentleman went from the Assembly which framed the constitution, -immediately afterwards, to one of those which ratified it, he should -have admitted an opposite construction? As Mr. S. would undertake, by -and by, to prove that, in the Convention of Virginia, he did admit the -very construction for which we now contended, he would take the liberty -further to inquire, how it happened, that, if such was really the -intention of the instrument, that such was the meaning of the people, -no man had heard of it until the discovery was produced by the British -Treaty? Strange national intention, unknown for years to every -individual! - -As the gentleman had been pleased to dwell on the idea of a co-operation -between the powers of the Government, he would take the liberty to -state, what had been ably explained by other gentlemen, that the power -of making Treaties was wholly different from that of making ordinary -laws; originating from different motives; producing different effects, -and operating to a different extent. In all those particulars, the -difference had been perfectly understood. For instance, the ordinary -legal protection of property, and the punishment of its violation, could -never be extended beyond your own jurisdiction; but, by Treaty, the same -protection could be extended within the jurisdiction of a foreign -government. You could not legislate an adjustment of disputes, nor a -peace with another country; but, by Treaty, both might be effected. Your -laws, in no instance, could operate except in your own jurisdiction, and -on your own citizens. By Treaty, an operation was given to stipulations -within the jurisdiction of both the contracting parties. - -It had been said that Treaties could not operate on those subjects which -were consigned to Legislative control. If this be true, said he, how -impotent in this respect is the power of the Government! What, then, -permit me to inquire, can the power of treating effect? I will tell you -what it cannot do; it can make no alliances, because any stipulations -for offensive or defensive operations, will infringe on the Legislative -power of declaring war, laying taxes, or raising armies, or all of them. -No Treaty of peace can probably be made, which will not either ascertain -boundaries, stipulate privileges to aliens, the payment of money, or a -cession of a territory, and certainly no Treaty of commerce can be made. - -Was it not strange, that, to this late hour, it should have been -delayed, and that now, all at once, it should have been discovered, that -no power was delegated to any person to regulate our foreign relations? -That, although a power was granted to the PRESIDENT and Senate to form -Treaties, that yet there were such reservations and restrictions, that -there remained nothing on which this power could operate? Or was it -true, that this power was competent to treat with every government on -earth but that of Great Britain? Might he not be permitted further to -inquire, if this Treaty had been formed with any other power, with the -precise stipulations it now contained, whether there ever would have -existed this doubt of constitutionality. - -MARCH 14.--In Committee of the Whole on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution: - -Mr. SAMUEL LYMAN said he rose only to make a few observations. He was -against the resolution now on the table, as involving a doctrine, in his -opinion, not only inconsistent with the principles of the constitution, -but also inconsistent with the laws of nations. In debating the merits -of this resolution, an exceedingly important abstract constitutional -question had arisen, viz: How far that House had a right to exercise -their Legislative discretion and judgment relative to carrying a Treaty -into effect. In order to answer this question, he would raise two -premises. And, first, by the constitution, the Legislative powers of -that House, in co-operation with the other branches of the Legislature, -extend to all objects within the reach of their sovereignty, excepting -the reservations to the distinct sovereignties of the several States -which compose the Union; but beyond those boundaries their powers could -not extend. Secondly, there is, by the constitution, attached to the -Legislature a subordinate kind of power, of a limited and ministerial, -or Executive nature. At present, it did not occur to him that this -subordinate power was to be exercised in its simplicity, excepting in -two instances, viz: 1st, for calling a Convention under certain -circumstances to amend the constitution; and, 2dly, for carrying into -effect Treaties which are constitutionally made; for these two purposes, -the people, who are the source of power, had stripped that House of all -Legislative authority, and made them only the executors of their will; -therefore, upon these premises he answered, if a Treaty was -unconstitutional, they had an undoubted right to exercise a Legislative -discretion and judgment relative to carrying it into operation, for they -were sent there as the guardians of the rights of their fellow-citizens, -and, for that purpose, are sworn to support the constitution; but if the -Treaty was constitutional, they had not a right to exercise that -discretion; for, without their intervention, it becomes the supreme law -of the land, and virtually repeals all laws which are repugnant to it; -and in that case that House is bound to obey it, and to carry it into -complete execution; for, by the constitution, the power of making -Treaties is vested solely and exclusively in the Executive Department. -In the former case, they have a right to exercise a deliberative or -Legislative power, but not in the latter case; they could there only -exercise a ministerial or Executive power. So that herein, said he, lies -the true distinction, and it arises from the nature and principles of -the constitution. - -He had not the least doubt of the constitutionality of a treaty, when -the stipulations in it were of such a nature as not to respect objects -of legislation, but only objects which lay beyond the bounds of their -sovereignty; for beyond those limits their laws could not extend as -rules to regulate the conduct of subjects of foreign Powers; and -although some stipulations in a Treaty may respect objects which were -within the reach of their sovereignty, yet it may be in such manner as -to be strictly constitutional; for such stipulations may be not only -pertinent, but absolutely necessary in forming the Treaty. This -conclusion, he thought, was the natural and necessary result of a fair -and liberal construction of the principles of the constitution, and -especially of that paragraph which vests the power of making Treaties in -the Supreme Executive, with the advice of the Senate. - -Mr. L. said he was sensible he had been delivering an unpopular -doctrine, but that he was deeply impressed with its truth, its reality, -and its importance; and that the obligations of an oath had prevented -his silence on the occasion. - -Mr. BALDWIN said he had before expressed his opinion, in general terms, -in favor of this question. It must have been observed that he had been -for several days noting the debates, and preparing to take part in them. -He had intended to have introduced the debate on Friday morning last, -but a singular incident prevented him, which he felt it to be his duty -to take this earliest opportunity to state to the House. Mr. B. then -said: about five minutes before I expected to rise on the question, I -was called out of the House by a person then unknown to me, who said his -name was FRELINGHUYSEN, and whom I found to be a Senator of the United -States. After a number of interviews, he observed, with great -expressions of pain and regret, that he was at last obliged to the -unwelcome office of delivering me that letter, which I opened and found -to be a challenge directed to me from JAMES GUNN, who is also a Senator -of the United States. The pretext for this transaction was, to extort -from me some private letters which I had received early in the session -from a number of my constituents, expressing their wish that I would -endeavor to prevent any thing being done in Congress to validate the -Mississippi Yazoo Land Speculation before the meeting of the State -Legislature. There was no complaint of any personal indecorum or -disrespect at all; whether they were actuated in their conduct solely by -interest in Yazoo speculations, I will not pretend to judge. The revival -of a transaction of so old a date at that particular moment, was to me -surprising. Not knowing their degree of relation to this question -between the two Houses, and not knowing the cast of character but of one -of them, I am left only to conjecture. It was so peculiarly timed, and -the professed object also of so peculiar a nature, to interrupt the -channels of confidence for free communication between me and my -constituents, that I have thought it my duty not to let the treatment of -it depend on my own individual discretion. I consider it as in the -discretion of the House. Mr. B. also observed that he felt himself under -the necessity of using this as an apology for the apparent neglects of -Friday, after the particular attention he had before appeared to pay to -the discussion; and for his not being able to notice any of the -proceedings in the debate of Friday, he had supposed he had lost the -opportunity of offering his opinion, but was glad to find the question -had not been taken, as he was unwilling to suffer this, or even a -greater interruption, to prevent him from declaring his opinion, as he -had before intended. - -He said, it was remarkable that several gentlemen rose with very -different expressions which had been said to contain the subject in -discussion. It was certainly important to agree exactly on that point. -The least variation in the point of departure would soon diverge till -they were out of sight of each other, and yet each one keep a straight -direction. One gentleman had stated, that the question was, whether this -House should feel itself at liberty to judge over the heads of PRESIDENT -and Senate on the subject of Treaties without restraint: his reasoning -seemed to be built on that proposition. Another gentleman had said that -the question was, whether the power of making Treaties was given by the -constitution to the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate, or to the -PRESIDENT and both branches of the Legislature. He might mention several -others, but he called the attention of the House to the fact, to settle -the point, that they might at least agree what they were talking about. -The question, said he, on the table is, to request of the PRESIDENT -papers respecting the Treaty: the objection is, you ought not to ask for -the papers, because you have no right to touch the subject. He begged -leave then to ask, with the utmost candor and respect, whether the real -question now depending and brought into dispute by this motion, is not -whether all questions relating to this subject are not so definitely and -perfectly settled by the constitution, that there was nothing for that -House to deliberate upon on the occasion, but only punctually to provide -the funds to carry the Treaty into effect. If it were allowed that there -might be any possible or extraordinary cases on the subject of -Treaty-making, in which it might ever be proper for that House to -deliberate--as, for instance, offensive Treaties which might bring the -country into a war--subsidies and support of foreign -armies--introduction of an established religion from a foreign country, -or any other of those acts which are by the constitution prohibited to -Congress, but not prohibited to the makers of Treaties; if it were -allowed that there might possibly exist any such case, in which it might -ever be proper for Congress to deliberate, it would seem to be giving up -the ground on which the discussion of the present question has been -placed; what agency the House should take, and when, would be other -questions. Whether a case would probably occur once in a hundred years -that would warrant the House in touching the subject, is of no -consequence to the debate. The right is denied in the largest sense. The -assertion is, that the House has no right to deliberate or to look into -any papers on the subject; that the people have, by the constitution, -reposed the whole of their confidence on this subject elsewhere; that, -to attempt to deliberate upon it, or to ask for any papers respecting -it, is treason and anarchy. - -If this ground were once given up, he should be infinitely less anxious -what the House might do in any particular case: these would rest on -their individual merits. For his own part, he was by no means disposed -to carry the interference of the House to any extreme; but he could not -express his abhorrence of the doctrine in the extent to which some -gentlemen have carried it in this discussion. He begged leave to entreat -gentlemen again candidly to review the few words in the constitution on -which they rested so much, and to ask whether they appeared to be such -labored expressions as they supposed--so apt and definite as to mean -exactly what they contend for, and nothing else; and whether all the -words may not well be satisfied without, and stand more harmoniously -connected with the other parts of the constitution. - -How much they intended to incorporate with this power of Treaty-making, -under cover of contract with foreign nations, he had not heard any one -attempt to explain; it seemed designed to stand distinguished as an -indefinite, uncontrolled branch of the Government, the extent of whose -powers was to be known only by its own acts. Its definition was to be, -that it was indefinite--like what is said of some branches of the powers -of Parliament; that no one has pretended or ought to pretend to know -their extent; that they are not to be submitted to the judgment of any -one but themselves; and that they never develope them but by the -particular exercise of them; that they were to be left in this state, -because, if they were defined, they might be eluded. However this might -be found respecting a foreign constitution, it is making a monster of -our own. There was not another part or lineament in it which appeared to -be in the same mould or proportion. - -Mr. B. then undertook to state his own view of the subject, and what he -thought ought to be done. Much, he said, depended on the words "make -Treaties and supreme law of the land;" as to the words supreme law of -the land, he had not much doubt for what purpose solely they were -introduced. The words were satisfied, and he thought most naturally, by -not suffering them to disturb the balance of the Federal Constitution, -for that is not the subject which the section where these words are used -is speaking of; but to consider them as giving to the Treaty-making -power the same paramount authority over the laws and constitutions of -the several States, that they give at the same time to the Constitution -and laws of the United States. The words appear to be introduced for the -express purpose of making the Constitution, laws, and Treaties of the -United States, paramount to the constitutions and laws of the several -States, and for no other purpose; this is all that the section appears -to be speaking of; it satisfies the words, is the most obvious and -natural meaning, and leaves the other parts of the constitution -harmonious and undisturbed. As to the words "power to make Treaties," it -was more difficult to ascertain precisely what the constitution meant to -give by them. It had been argued that from the nature of governmental -powers, the Treaty-making power must be paramount, and from the nature -of contract it must be paramount. The truth is, the Treaty-making power -must be what the constitution has made it. He did not hesitate to say, -that the most natural meaning to give these words, was to consider them -as borrowed from former use, and to give them the meaning which they had -always before given them. Gentlemen had said that nothing useful could -be derived from English books and explanations on these terms. This -seemed to him an unreasonable assertion. It might as well be said that -they could not use an English Dictionary to ascertain the meaning of -words. In many sciences, said he, there are definite and appropriate -phrases as well as definite and appropriate words; and, in fact, books -which are dictionaries of phrases, ascertain the meaning of phrases with -as much precision as dictionaries ascertain the meaning of words. It is -exceedingly useful that it should be so. When such a precise meaning is -fixed to a phrase, and publicly known, it is apt to remain a long time -exact, as it is frequently employed, and is very useful as a medium of -certainty. Many instances of this kind might be quoted, particularly -from English books on law and government. He would observe further, -these appropriate phrases had been for their certainty in many instances -transferred into our constitution, and their meaning must be manifestly -sought in those sources as in a dictionary. One remarkable instance -occurred to him, and which, from the singularity of its garb, would be -very discernible in the constitution--he meant the definition of treason -in the third section of the third article of the constitution. The -phrase is levying war, adhering to enemies, giving them aid and comfort. -These are the very words of the English books, which have been so -critically judged that they are not capable of the least variation in -their meaning on that tremendous subject; but this meaning is to be -sought from those sources; he might mention several instances, but it -was unnecessary. He thought the phrase, power to make Treaties, should -be ascertained in the same manner; and the English meaning, as it would -naturally be understood at the time of making the constitution, should -be affixed to it; that it should be considered as giving to the -PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate the same kind of power as the -King of England possesses on the subject of Treaties, which it is known -is in several cases subject to the control of Parliament. Here it is -qualified by the powers specifically given to Congress. - -Mr. HOLLAND said: It is with great diffidence I rise on this important -subject, to submit some considerations to this committee. As it has now -become a constitutional question, not with respect to the merits of the -Treaty, but with respect to the constitutional right of this House to -request the Executive to furnish us with papers that related to the -Treaty antecedent to its ratification. - -To this it is objected that this House has no discretionary power over -the Treaty, and, on that account, has nothing to do with the papers. - -The question is not whether the Treaty is a good or bad Treaty, but it -is whether we have a right to exercise our judgments upon it. Then, -without any regard to the Treaty, we must be governed by the rational -construction of the fundamental principles of government. - -To illustrate which, it may be necessary to examine what has been -incident to the different kinds of government, according to the -histories of those nations governed by despotism, monarchs, or -republics; and from the Constitution of the United States as the -fundamental maxims of the Republic, draw that construction that is most -rational and natural. - -It will also be proper to examine which of those governments preserves -the most power in the people. - -First, then, of monarchy. Where has that power been placed? According to -the theory of the English Government it has been lodged in the -Sovereign, for it is there expressly said (nor has it been denied on -this floor) that the King is the source of all power; and it is also -expressly declared that the King of Great Britain has sovereign and -exclusive right to make Treaties. That, when they are made, they cannot -be impeded or annulled by any existing power in the kingdom. This is the -theory of that Government. But what has been the practice? I answer, the -contrary; for it ever has been that, when a Treaty was made, the same -has been submitted to the Parliament for concurrence; and Parliament, if -they thought proper, admitted and sometimes annulled them, as in the -Treaty of Utrecht, and sundry instances that the history of that nation -affords us. The English Government, therefore, is in practice what it is -not in theory. By the construction of the constitution, as contended -for, by giving uncontrollable power to twenty Senators and the -PRESIDENT, our Government will be in practice what the English -Government is in theory. If this doctrine had been believed, that this -was the true construction of the constitution, previous and at the time -of its adoption, would the people of the United States have adopted it? -If they had been informed that, by this instrument, they were ceding -more power to two-thirds of the Senators and PRESIDENT, than even could -be practised by the King of England, with his lords spiritual and -temporal, under that impression would they have ceded that power? Or, if -they had been told that the House of Representatives, under this -constitution, had less power than was exercised by the House of Commons -in England; that they would be less able to secure their liberties in -this country against the approaches of prerogative, would they have, -under that belief, accepted of this constitution? I think, Mr. Chairman, -I may venture to say they would not. - -With respect to the more absolute government of France, where has this -power been lodged? In this, as in the monarchy of England, it was, in -theory, lodged in a prince; but the theory, even in that despotic -government, never could be carried into practice. According to -_Vattel_, in the Treaty made by Francis I., in the Treaty of Madrid, on -account of that Treaty encroaching on the fundamentals of their -government, it was set aside. How was this done? It was not done by -Parliament, for they had none; but the principal people of the kingdom -met together at Cogniac and annulled it. I ask again, Mr. Chairman, if -the people of this country possess less power than the people of that -despotic Government? Or do they possess less power to withstand the -usurpations of the Executive, on the subject of Treaties, in their -Representatives in Congress, than has ever been maintained in the -cramped situation of the people of England by the House of Commons? - -Why were these rights ever maintained and so scrupulously attended to by -the people of those countries? It was because they considered them as -the palladium of their remaining liberty,--they therefore, would not let -them go. - -Then, with respect to a Republic, the sovereign power is in the people. -It therefore follows that whatever can be effected by the people in -those countries can be done here--they being the source of power. - -Then, with regard to the constitution, it must be construed naturally -and liberally in behalf of the people. Not as giving all power that can -be given, but as retaining all power and natural right that ought to be -retained. It would have been extremely improper to have wantonly -discarded natural privilege, or ceded more power than was essential to -government; nor was any more intended to be given. - -The constitution, upon the face of it, shows that this is the -case--limits are prescribed to governmental power. Not so in the -countries spoken of, yet the people exercise it. But it is said our -constitution has not retained this privilege, and it is the law and the -testimony, sacred volume, &c. The sacredness depends upon the attention -to the principles that procured its adoption; when that is contravened a -violence is made upon the rights of the people. If, by any construction -that can be given, these rights can be preserved, it is wise to consider -it as the better opinion. But it is said to be impossible that this -power has been ceded, subject to no control, to the PRESIDENT and -two-thirds of the Senators present; that, whatever may be the practice -in other countries, it will not apply to this; that those countries have -no constitution, and that we have, and must be governed by it. -Unfortunate circumstance! why adopted? Was it wantonly to throw away a -privilege and natural right? Certainly not, but the contrary. It was to -secure natural right, and to establish a Republican form of Government. - -I considered that the Executive had absolute power to make peace; as by -the constitution he is declared Commander-in-chief of all the armies, -his situation enabled him to be the best judge of the forces and of the -force he had to contend with, and as secrecy was necessary to effecting -a Treaty of Peace, that power was properly vested in him, guarded by -two-thirds of the Senate. But a Treaty of Commerce presupposes an -existing peace, and in those Treaties secrecy is not essential; but a -competent knowledge of the produce of the respective States in all their -remote situations was necessary; which would be best obtained by an -association of the three branches of Government. - -This is a Treaty of Commerce, and therefore has involved Legislative -objects. It consequently requires Legislative sanction; a contrary -construction would be a violation of the constitution and of the -principles upon which it was adopted, and therefore a violation of the -rights of the people. - -I confess, on viewing the exception and force of the argument, that I -had some doubt, that when the government became old and corrupt, that -this perversion might be attempted; but had no idea that in the course -of six years it would be contended for. - -Mr. BRADBURY observed, that the most plausible reason that he had heard -in support of the resolution under the consideration of the committee -resulted from a principle advanced by a member from Pennsylvania, who -spoke upon the subject last week. The principle was this; that where any -articles of a Treaty were repugnant to prior existing acts of Congress, -those acts must first be repealed by Congress before such Treaty can -become the law of the land; and it was said some of the articles of the -British Treaty were of this nature. He would not stay to examine the -truth of the fact, for admitting it to be true, he altogether denied the -principle; but yet he acknowledged that if it could be made out, it -would afford the best reason yet given for calling for the papers. If -their concurrence was necessary to give existence or legality to the -Treaty, he saw not why they ought not to be favored with the papers as -well as the Senate. But he asserted and would endeavor to prove, that -the Treaty has already a legal existence; that it is now the law of the -land; and that, therefore, no act of Congress is, or can be, necessary -to make it so; and, therefore, that House could have no need of the -papers, nor any right to call for them on that ground. - -That the Treaty had already become the law of the land, and that no -Legislative act of Congress was necessary to make it so, he argued -wholly from the constitution itself, by which alone the question must at -last be determined. - -That instrument expressly declares, that all Treaties made under the -authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. He -laid no stress upon the word supreme, admitting for argument's sake, -that the supremacy ascribed to the constitution and laws, and Treaties -made under it, meant a supremacy over the constitution and laws of -individual States. All he asked to be granted him, and which he thought -could not be denied, was that a Treaty made under the authority of the -United States was the law of the land. If so, then all that needed to be -proved was, that a Treaty made by the PRESIDENT, with the advice and -consent of two-thirds of the Senate, was a Treaty made under the -authority of the United States. And to prove that, he needed only to -mention another clause in the constitution, which expressly declares -that the PRESIDENT, with such advice and consent, shall have power to -make Treaties. - -He nowhere read in the constitution that any act of Congress, in any -possible case, was necessary to make a Treaty, so as that without it -such Treaty could not be the law of the land. He nowhere read that prior -acts of Congress repugnant to a Treaty must first be repealed before a -Treaty could be a law. - -But, says the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the same Treaty power is -given to the King by the Constitution and laws of England, that is given -to the PRESIDENT by our constitution, and yet the Parliament have the -power there which he contends for in favor of Congress here; that is, -they must repeal prior laws repugnant to a new Treaty, before it can be -the law of the land; and why is not an act of Congress, it is asked, -necessary for the same purpose, in a similar case here? He would answer, -because our constitution is different from the British in this respect: -it declares that a Treaty made under the authority of the United States, -(and he had shown that a Treaty made by the PRESIDENT, as aforesaid, was -made under such authority,) is the law of the land, and if it is a law, -nothing further can be requisite to make it so. There was no such -declaration in the Constitution and laws of England. - -There was no arguing from the power of Parliament to the power of -Congress. The Parliament must have controlled this Treaty power of the -King, and stripped him of his prerogative, by use and custom. There had -been in England a constant struggle between power and privilege; the -prerogatives of the King were not founded in the grant of the people; -they were founded on force, on the right of conquest; whatever, -therefore, was gained from the King by the Commons, was considered as so -much gained by the people from an adverse power. - -If the PRESIDENT were an hereditary monarch, deriving his power from his -predecessors by descent, a power originally founded in conquest, -Congress would do well to get as much of it out of his hands as they -could. It would here be, as it was there, a struggle between prerogative -and privilege; it would be the people against the King. But as this was -not the case, and as Congress never had in fact assumed and exercised -the power of confirming, by an act of theirs, Treaties made by the -PRESIDENT, this argument from analogy wholly failed. - -Suppose the Parliament of Great Britain should pass a law expressly -delegating the Treaty-making power to the King, with the advice and -consent of two-thirds of his Privy Council, and should declare in the -act, that a Treaty made under such authority should be the supreme law -of the land. They claim a right to make such a law, for Judge -_Blackstone_ affirms, that the denial of a power in every government, -even to alter every part of its constitution, is the height of political -absurdity; and in England, he expressly ascribes this power to -Parliament. - -What would be the effect of such an act of Parliament? Would not a -Treaty made under it be clearly the law of England? and would not all -acts of Parliament, prior and repugnant to it, be repealed by it? He was -clearly of opinion they would; and this clause, he said, was inserted in -the American Constitution, probably to guard against that very -construction which is now endeavored to be put upon the Treaty power; on -purpose to cut off all pretence of a power in Congress to control a -Treaty, by refusing to repeal any prior laws that might stand in the way -of it. - -But, said the same gentleman, shall a British House of Commons have this -right of controlling the Treaty-making power, and shall it be denied to -the Representatives of a free people? He answered, the PRESIDENT and -Senate of the United States were as much the Representatives of a free -people as that House was; they were as truly, though not so immediately, -chosen by the people as they were. The people distributed their powers -as they pleased. The PRESIDENT, said he, represents the people as their -Executive agent, and is possessed of all Executive power, and the power -of making Treaties. The true question, then, was, shall one constituted -representative authority usurp the power and control the acts assigned -by the constitution to another representative authority of the same free -people? They certainly ought not. If they should attempt it, it would be -opposing one authority of the people to another. It would be dividing a -free people against itself. But he hoped he had said enough to show the -unsoundness of that principle, and fully to establish what he first -undertook to prove, that the Treaty was already completed; that it was -already the law of the land; and that it did, by its own force, repeal -all prior laws, if there were any standing in the way of it; and if so, -they could have no need of the papers to assist them in making it a law. -It had also been laid by the King before his Parliament, and he supposed -the necessary appropriations had been made to carry it into effect. He -did not know that any other Parliamentary provision was necessary. - -But it may be said, that it is fit and proper that they should call for -the papers mentioned in the resolution, even if the Treaty were law, -because appropriations by act of Congress would be necessary to carry it -into effect, and they ought to have the papers to judge whether it be -fit for them to make those appropriations. - -He answered, whether that be fit or not, in his opinion, must depend -wholly upon the Treaty or law itself, and upon nothing out of it. It -was like all other laws requiring appropriations, in making which they -must be governed by a sound and legal discretion, and that discretion -must be governed by the instrument itself. - -Even if a question should arise and be proper for the discussion of that -House, on the constitutionality of the Treaty, yet that question must be -decided by the Treaty itself, and by nothing else; and there could be no -need of any papers for that purpose. If general information were the -object, to allay the public sensibility, he should think the better way -would be to request the PRESIDENT to publish the papers in all the -newspapers throughout the United States. But he believed he must be -considered as the best judge in that matter. He would only add, that the -correspondence between their Envoy and the British Minister was, in its -nature, secret and confidential. It was communicated to the Senate -because they were a part of the Treaty-making power, which the House was -not; but even to them it was communicated in confidence. A request to -the PRESIDENT, said he, to communicate these papers, amounts to a -requirement; but there can be no right to require where there is no -obligation to obey. - -Mr. PAGE spoke as follows: I confess, sir, that I had wished that this -House, instead of asking the PRESIDENT for information respecting the -negotiation and ratification of the Treaty, at this late day of its -session, had given him, as soon as possible after its meeting, fully -their opinions, and that of their constituents, respecting the Treaty -itself. But, as time has been afforded for deliberation, and the House -has waited most patiently and respectfully till the PRESIDENT could -"place the subject before them," according to his promise in his Address -to Congress, I think they have shown a spirit of moderation which -deserves credit. The friends of the Treaty cannot complain that it has -been hastily and rudely attacked, and should not object to the request -which is proposed to be made to the PRESIDENT, to furnish a statement of -facts which, from what has been said elsewhere, may be supposed -sufficient to silence the most clamorous opposers of the Treaty. - -I think that the Treaty is constitutional, as far as relates to the -powers of the contracting parties to make Treaties; and is -constitutional and valid, also, as far as relates to that part of it -which gives it the name of a Treaty of Amity, and which might be in a -separate and distinct Treaty by itself; for the PRESIDENT, by and with -the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senators present, has an -undoubted authority, under the express words in the first article of the -constitution, to make Treaties. And I have no doubt that the Treaties -which were in the view of the framers of that article, must have been -principally Treaties of Peace, of Amity, of Neutrality, or of Alliance. -This is the more probable, as the first and principal Treaties in which -nations were concerned, were Treaties of Peace, or Treaties to secure -the blessings of peace; and it is certain that the Treaty of Peace with -Great Britain was the very Treaty which gave rise to the declaration of -the constitution, that all Treaties made and to be made by the authority -of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land: for the -Treaty of Peace with Great Britain was said to be in a state of -inexecution on account of an obstruction thrown in the way by the laws -of certain States. This article, therefore, was intended to remove all -obstacles, which had arisen or might arise from State Legislatures, and -might, I will here remark, as easily have been extended to remove all -obstructions from the General Legislature by adding to the words "any -Constitution or law of the States," these words, "or the Constitution or -laws of the United States notwithstanding." The power to make Treaties -of Commerce and Navigation, I humbly conceive, could scarcely be within -the view and design of the Convention, at least not as a primary object, -when they formed the article respecting Treaties; because they knew, -that the extent, situation, population, and productions of the United -States, were such as would command them a sufficient share of the -commerce of the world, without the aid of Commercial Treaties. They knew -that almost all Europe stood in need of their productions, and that -Great Britain and her islands could scarcely exist without them; they -knew more, they knew this, sir, that the almost universal belief of -their constituents, that giving a power to Congress to regulate -commerce, which would answer every purpose of Commercial Treaties, gave -existence to the very powers under which they were acting at the moment -they framed that article. This mode of regulating commerce was favored -by the opinion of the people, who celebrated the adoption of the -constitution with so much exultation and expensive parade in the great -commercial cities of the United States. They had no doubt that the new -Congress would use the power with which it was invested, so as to oblige -Great Britain to open her ports to them in the West Indies, and to put -their trade with them upon a more equitable and stable footing. Indeed, -sir, the people thought, as associations not to import certain articles -from Great Britain, entered into by them when they were poor helpless -Colonists, with halters about their necks, repealed the Stamp act, that -acts of Congress regulating commerce, so as to retaliate on Great -Britain, would at least prevent the enacting of the law by which the -British King was authorized to regulate the commerce of the United -States with Great Britain and her Islands. - -I acknowledge, sir, that whenever a Treaty is to be made, the PRESIDENT -and Senate are the proper agents to make it. I think it an excellence in -our constitution that the PRESIDENT and Senate, though not allowed to -declare war, have authority to put a stop to its horrors. This is a -wise provision against the injury which the pride and ambition of the -larger States might do to the smaller, by continuing a war. But I cannot -conceive that when Congress is authorized to make all laws necessary and -proper to carry into effect all the powers granted by the constitution, -the Treaty-making power as well as others, and are to provide for the -general welfare, which is not confided to the PRESIDENT and Senate, nor -can be intrusted to them alone by the people upon any principle which -has ever had weight in the formation of a Republican Government,--I -cannot conceive, I say, that as this is the case, and the House of -Representatives is composed of members proportioned to a certain ratio -of the number of persons to be represented, and has the sole right to -originate money bills, how it can possibly be supposed that the -PRESIDENT and Senate, without their concurrence, can make regulations of -commerce, which may be injurious to the general welfare, ruinous to the -commerce of certain, and even the largest, States; and by a Treaty, too, -which may, moreover, deprive that House, which, by the supposition of -those who have defended the Treaty is at least a Committee of Ways and -Means, (and, indeed, nothing more,) of the resources of revenue to -which, by the constitution, they might have recourse. - -But we are told, sir, that the power given to Congress by the -constitution to regulate commerce cannot extend to that regulation which -depends upon the will of a foreign nation or government, and which can -only be regulated by compact, or by the Treaty-making or pactitious -powers. Granting that this assertion be true, which, however, may be -denied, as the general belief which I have alluded to, and on which the -existence of the present Government was founded, seemed to contradict -it; for it was almost universally believed that an act of Congress -regulating the commerce of the United States with Great Britain, as had -been proposed to the former Congress, or Congress under the -Confederation, or as proposed to this House on the 3d of January, 1794, -and well known by the name of MADISON's propositions, or as proposed by -Mr. CLARK, 7th April, 1794, would have brought about a more advantageous -commercial intercourse with Great Britain than any direct negotiation -with the British Minister. It was thought highly probable that the -Parliament of Great Britain would (if any of these propositions had been -adopted by Congress) have refused to have renewed their act, by which -the trade with these United States (as if they were more degraded than -Colonies) was regulated by the King's Proclamation. I say, granting, -however, that assertion to be true, how does it prove, or what other -assertion can prove, that Congress has not a right, under the express -words of the constitution, which declares that it shall have power to -regulate commerce with foreign nations, to be a party to that compact, -or to have some share, either previously or subsequently, in the -Treaty-making business, when it regulates the commerce of the United -States with foreign powers? - -I may agree that a Treaty is necessary to establish a commercial -intercourse between two nations, to their mutual advantage and -satisfaction, but I must affirm, that as that Treaty would be a -commercial regulation, and as Congress is expressly empowered by the -constitution to regulate commerce, whenever such Treaty shall be made -between the United States and any other nation, Congress must either -direct that the negotiation be commenced upon conditions approved, or -sanction the ratification of such Treaty by some act showing that the -regulation of commerce, by the Treaty, was made by the authority of -Congress, in conformity to the constitution. - -Besides, sir, if the PRESIDENT and Senate can regulate the commerce of -the United States with one nation, they can with all nations, and if -they can with all, what nation can there be with whom Congress can -regulate commerce? This argument, therefore, must fall to the ground. We -are told, however, that the Treaty-making power, from its nature, is -competent to all the objects at least of the Treaty under consideration, -and is not to be controlled or checked by this House. Let me examine -this assertion. If this be true, sir, we find that although the British -King, from whose tyranny we revolted, cannot force upon his subjects, -against the will of their Representatives, a Treaty, which it is -acknowledged, too, he has a right to make, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED -STATES can, by his Proclamation, force upon the people who are his -constituents a Treaty which their direct Representatives wish to -suspend, alter, or annul. Can this possibly be a true construction of -the Treaty-making power? Surely it cannot. If it be true, then, can the -PRESIDENT repeal, as he has by the Treaty, the laws of Congress, -although by the constitution he cannot negative them? He can oblige -Congress to levy taxes; can withdraw impost and tonnage from their -reach; prohibit the exportation of sundry articles, the produce of the -United States, although the constitution forbids, the Senate and -Representatives concurring, to lay the smallest duty on the exportation -of any article; he can create offices and annex salaries thereto; -destroy the rights of this House; provoke war; in short, he can do any -thing; but this we are sworn to deny. The absurdity of that -construction, then, must be evident, and the recollection of our oaths -to support the constitution, of which we have been reminded, must force -us to revolt at the thoughts of adopting such a monstrous construction -of the constitution. We are reminded also of the PRESIDENT's -Proclamation. I will attend to it. I look upon it as a proper -notification of the ratification of the Treaty of Amity with Great -Britain, but it can have no effect on the Treaty of Commerce and -Navigation, till sanctioned by the votes of Congress. The evacuation of -the posts on our frontiers held by the British, if intended in -consequence of the Treaty of Amity, ought to take place, or if in -conformity to the Treaty of Peace; but, if intended as a compliance with -conditions annexed to the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, good faith -requires that they ought not to be evacuated until the final adjustment -of the differences which may arise in the course of the discussion of -the merits of that Treaty, and this with me is one reason why I wish for -information from the PRESIDENT respecting the Treaty. I confess too, -sir, that I wish for a full and free conference with the Senate on the -important subject of the Treaty. - -Mr. BOURNE said he would have given a silent vote on this question, had -it not have been for some strange doctrines which had been asserted, for -he did not consider the question in itself as necessarily involving any -constitutional question. The doctrine, that the formal assent of the -House of Representatives was essential to the legal existence of a -Treaty, struck him as a perfect novelty. That the PRESIDENT and Senate -had power under the constitution to make Treaties, and that these -Treaties were the laws of the land, he had never heard denied until this -debate. It was true he had heard it said, that the House might control -the PRESIDENT and Senate in the exercise of this power, by refusing to -carry Treaties into effect by withholding appropriations of money; but -he did not expect to hear the assertion, that the ratification of the -House was necessary to a Treaty, before it became the law of the land. - -As a Representative of a small State, he felt himself much interested in -opposing the doctrine contended for. Under the former Confederation -Rhode Island had an equal vote with any State in the making of Treaties. -This right was thought to have been fully preserved under the present -constitution. But, if the sentiments he was combating prevailed, the -small States would be deprived of one of their most essential rights; -for the power of making Treaties, as one of the principal rights of -sovereignty, was vested in all the States separately when they became -independent, was afterwards, and in the old Confederation, vested in -Congress, each State having an equal vote. It was now, in his opinion, -exclusively vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate, in which body the great -and small States had the same equality of suffrage. The opinion which he -advanced was not merely the opinion of Rhode Island when the -constitution was adopted. A gentleman from Massachusetts had already -shown from the debates of the Virginia Convention, that that Assembly -entertained the same opinion. He was sure the opinion prevailed in the -Convention of Massachusetts--he had attended their debates when this -part of the constitution was the subject of discussion. Objections were -raised against it, from the indefiniteness of the power vested in the -PRESIDENT and Senate of making Treaties. No one suggested that the House -of Representatives had any control over, much less a participation in -this power. It was urged, from the nature of the power, that it ought -to be placed where it was--in the PRESIDENT and Senate. The Senate -represented the sovereignty of the States; besides, from their small -numbers, they were better adapted to the exercise of this power in -respect to secrecy and despatch, necessary in negotiations. Objections -were raised on the ground of the possible abuses to which the power of -making Treaties, unlimited and undefined as it was, might be carried. No -one said the PRESIDENT and Senate did not possess the power, nor was it -pretended that Congress had any power to control it. - -He then called the attention of the committee to the debates of the -Convention of North Carolina. He had been a little surprised to hear a -member from that State yesterday say he was a member of the Convention, -and that it was understood that Congress could control the PRESIDENT and -Senate in making Treaties, so far as respected commerce; the power of -legislating on commercial regulations being given to Congress. What -created his surprise was, that he had read the debates of the first -Convention, and found no such sentiment. The gentleman had explained -himself by saying, there was a second Convention called in that State, -of which he was a member, and there the doctrine alluded to had been -advanced. The debates of this Convention Mr. B. had not seen. - -Mr. BRENT said he should not in the present debate touch on the merits -of the Treaty, which he conceived foreign to this question. On a motion -to ask for papers with respect to the Treaty, he did not conceive with -what propriety the fitness of the instrument could be brought into view. - -The turn which the debate had taken had given rise, he said, to an -important constitutional question; he did not believe its decision of -consequence to the decision on the present motion; but as the debate had -taken that turn, he should pursue the same road in answer to the -arguments of gentlemen. He laid this down as a sound inference from the -provisions of the constitution on the subject of the Treaty power: that -the PRESIDENT and Senate possess the right of forming Treaties, and of -carrying on the necessary negotiations with foreign countries; but when -these contain stipulations bearing a relation to the specific power -vested in the Legislature, the House had a right to take cognizance of -it, and such a Treaty could not become the supreme law of the land until -sanctioned by the Legislature. To show the justness of this position, he -should examine this subject, he said, in a threefold light. He should -examine it by a recurrence to the words of the constitution; then to the -opinions which prevailed as to its meaning at the time it was framed and -adopted; and, lastly, he should examine what construction was best -calculated to preserve the liberties of this country. - -The constitution contains two clauses in reference to the Treaty-making -power. The first declares that the PRESIDENT, with two-thirds of the -Senate, shall have power to make Treaties. He proceeded to inquire -whether this clause gives them the right to make Treaties the supreme -law of the land? To determine this it was necessary to examine the -import of the word in those countries where the Treaty power had been -frequently exercised, and to consult the opinions of the best civilians. -The general power of making Treaties is under the control of the -constitution. In despotic countries, where all power, Legislative, -judicial, and Executive, is in the hands of one person, there the -Treaty-making power is without control, and a Treaty as soon as made -becomes, _ipso facto_, the supreme law of the land; but in all limited -governments, the Treaty power is subject to the limitations in the -constitution. The practice of this principle may be found even in the -British Government. There, though the King originates Treaties, as the -PRESIDENT and Senate do here, they do not become the supreme law of the -land, respecting Legislative subjects, until the co-operation of -Parliament is obtained. Thus the power of making Treaties does not imply -the power of making those Treaties in all cases the supreme law of the -land. If the Executive make a Treaty involving none but Executive powers -strictly, then it becomes immediately the supreme law; but if they -contain provisions, which involve the Legislative authority, the -Executive can make them but conditionally, and they do not become -supreme until the Legislature choose to make them so. The British -Government furnishes an example where this doctrine has been practised, -and it is by a reference to the practice of despotic Governments, that -the mistaken idea is taken up that all Treaties, as soon as made, become -the supreme law of the land. The clause in our constitution, he -concluded, does not give authority to the PRESIDENT and Senate to make a -supreme law of the land. - -When this clause of the constitution is compared with the other parts of -it, it will be found, he said, that the above interpretation is just; -for the Treaty-making power is delegated as a general power, while to -Congress specific powers are granted. The rational and admitted rule of -construction in these cases is, that specific power restrains general -powers; and here, then, the general Treaty power must be restrained by -the specific powers of Congress. He admitted that the Executive had full -power, under the general authority vested in them by the constitution, -to originate Treaties and to carry on negotiations with foreign powers; -but that if the provisions of a Treaty so negotiated clashed with -specific powers granted, the authority exercising those specific powers -must give it their sanction before it becomes the supreme law of the -land. - -He next turned to the second clause of the constitution respecting -Treaties, which had been noticed in the debate. It says, that the -constitution, laws, and Treaties, shall be the supreme law of the land; -and gentlemen contend, he remarked, that though the first clause does -not make the Treaties entered into by the Executive the supreme law of -the land, yet that this does; but its obvious and only meaning, when the -whole of it is taken into view, is, that the Constitution, laws, and -Treaties of the United States, are only meant to be declared supreme to -constitutions and laws of the individual States. It is admitted, as a -sound rule of construction, that to discover the true meaning of any -instrument, it is fair to have recourse to the existing circumstances -that produced it. When the constitution was formed, it was under a -strong impression of the inconveniences experienced under the -Confederation, when great obstruction was thrown in the way of the -Treaty power, by the States refusing to carry into execution those -agreed to by the constitutional authority. This was the evil the framers -of the constitution had in view when they inserted this clause, and it -has no relation to the powers of the General Government, which stand -precisely in the same situation with or without it. It does not declare -that Treaties shall abrogate laws, but that the States shall not have it -in their power to throw impediments in the way of their execution. The -words of the constitution cannot be understood otherwise than that the -constitution, laws, and Treaties, shall exist together; it does not say -that a Treaty shall repeal a law, or a law repeal a treaty. Then the -constitution certainly contemplated that they never should be in -opposition, for contradictory and opposing laws cannot exist at the same -time; if they exist at the same time, they cannot be in opposition to -each other. If it can be supposed that the PRESIDENT and Senate can make -a Treaty in opposition to a law of the Legislature, and yet both the -Treaty and the law be at the same time the supreme law of the land, an -absurdity is supposed. But if it be admitted that the House shall have a -participation in the business of Treaties, in cases which involve the -Legislative authority, then the words of the constitution become -intelligible, and both Treaties and laws may be at the same time the -supreme law of the land. - -Gentlemen say, that Treaties, _ipso facto_, repeal anterior laws -clashing with their provisions: they say, that the constitution, laws, -and Treaties, stand upon the same footing in the constitution, being all -declared the supreme law of the land. If Treaties can repeal laws, then -laws can repeal the constitution, for the second (laws) are to the first -(constitution) what the third (Treaties) are to the second (laws); then, -also, by parity of reasoning, Treaties may repeal the constitution. If -all stand on the same footing, and the precedence is according to the -point of time, the last always prevailing, then Treaties may change the -fundamental principles of our Government; then the PRESIDENT and Senate, -by entering into stipulations with a foreign government, may give us a -monarchy, may convert our PRESIDENT into a king, and our Senate into a -nobility; for, say the gentlemen, Treaties are the law of the land as -well as the constitution, and a subsequent law repeals those which are -anterior. But these positions are false in all their parts; a law or a -Treaty cannot repeal the constitution, nor can a Treaty repeal a law. If -the manner in which the three words are placed in the constitution is to -have any force, it would not favor the construction of the gentlemen; -they contend for the supremacy of Treaties, whereas Treaties are last -named, and the true construction from this source would be the reverse, -when there was clashing. He next adverted to the lengths to which the -mode of interpretation contended for by the gentlemen would carry them. -It was never intended, he asserted, by the people, when they instituted -this Government, that the Treaty power should possess this omnipotence. -It was never intended that the PRESIDENT and Senate should have it in -their power to effect a radical change in our Government, and stipulate -with a foreign nation for a guarantee of the change. Laws contrary to -the constitution are nugatory, and Treaties contrary to existing laws, -the same; because, when in that stage, they are not concluded under the -authority of the United States, but are only so (and then there is no -longer any clashing) when once they have received the sanction of the -Legislature. From the above, he concluded that the PRESIDENT and Senate -originate Treaties, and that the Legislature to a certain extent should -exercise a check upon this power. And upon these principles the British -Treaty is not the supreme law of the land until a decision on it was had -in the Legislature. - -Mr. FINDLAY.--It seems to be agreed by both parties that the express -words of the constitution will not support either position without a -liberty of construction. The difference of opinion is now confined to -what construction is most agreeable to the general principles of the -constitution. - -That the construction which gives the fullest scope to all the powers -vested in the different departments of the Government, and which, by -combining their operation, is the best calculated for the preservation -of the Government itself, offers fairest to be the true one, cannot -reasonably be doubted. - -The Legislative powers, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to -levy taxes, appropriate money, &c., are specifically vested in Congress, -and as deposited in the Legislature, are secured by numerous negative -checks, declaring what things Congress shall not do, and guards -regulating the manner in which it shall exercise its powers on the -proper subjects. - -The Treaty-making power is not vested in Congress; the negotiating part -of making Treaties is partly of an Executive nature, and can be most -conveniently exercised by that department, and is, therefore, vested in -the PRESIDENT and Senate. The PRESIDENT shall have the power to make -Treaties, two-thirds of the Senate agreeing therewith. - -Even the power of negotiating, which includes the timing of Treaties, -the appointment of Envoys, and instructing them, and approving of -Treaties, so far as to present them for ratification, are powers of -great importance, and may put the Government in such circumstances as to -render it expedient to ratify a Treaty, which, if it had not been agreed -to by the negotiating agents, it would have rejected--are powers of -great importance of themselves; but it is acknowledged that more than -this is vested by the constitution in the Treaty-making powers. - -The power of making treaties is admitted to be so extensive as to -embrace all subjects arising under the law of nations, for securing -amity and friendship betwixt nations, and for the mutual protection of -the citizens in their correspondence with each other. Authority for this -purpose is not vested in Congress among the enumerated powers, but -expressly given to the PRESIDENT and Senate; therefore, Treaties to this -extent, ratified under their authority, are the laws of the land, -according to the constitution. - -The powers specifically vested in Congress are so explicitly checked and -guarded as to form an unequivocal limitation to the Treaty-making power, -when it extends to powers specifically vested in the Legislature, -consisting of the Senate and House of Representatives, with the -approbation of the PRESIDENT. - -The Legislature cannot transfer its essential powers, nor evade them; -the exercise of its privileges it may dispense with, but if it may -dispense with or transfer any one Legislative power, it may, on the same -principle, dispense with or transfer every power with which it is -vested, and for the exercise of which the Legislature only are -responsible. - -The Executive cannot assume or exercise any power expressly vested in -the Legislature. If the Executive may, by an extension of the -Treaty-making power, regulate commerce, make laws to raise and -appropriate money, &c., or, which is the same thing, command laws to be -made for carrying Treaties, which interfere with the Legislative powers, -into effect; or if, as is contended, the Legislature has no moral power -of discretion, no power to refuse to make laws to carry Treaties into -effect, or even to form an opinion on the goodness or badness of -Treaties, when they relate to powers explicitly intrusted to its -deliberation: on the same principle all Legislative discretion may be -exercised by the Treaty-making power without regard to the -constitutional guards provided to prevent the abuses of those powers. -For there is no Legislative power vested in Congress but what may be -either directly or indirectly exercised by the Treaty-making power. - -If the Treaty-making power is admitted to the extent pleaded for, and -the specific powers vested in Congress are admitted in the extent in -which they are unequivocally expressed, we are reduced to a dilemma, and -the constitution is necessarily admitted to have instituted two -interfering Legislative authorities, acting in direct competition with -each other on the same subjects, and both making supreme laws of the -land; which though they may be nominally distinct, have the same effect -on the citizens, with this difference only, that we may be relieved from -the oppression of laws by a repeal of them, but cannot be relieved from -the hardships resulting from a Treaty, without the consent of another -nation. - -In advocating the resolution before the committee, we admit a reasonable -latitude to both the Legislative and Treaty-making powers. Where the -Treaty-making power extends itself to express Legislative objects, and -where Legislative aid is absolutely necessary to carry the Treaty into -effect, we contend that the Legislature in making such laws, exercise -that moral power that is necessary for legislating in all other cases, -and are not reduced to the situation of an executive officer, or mere -treasurers of the United States. In this case, we say, that the powers -are not intended to make war with each other; that the departments ought -to concur in the exercise of them. This method preserves the exercise of -both powers in their proper places; the other destroys the Legislative -authority which is, by the constitution, the most explicitly vested, and -precisely guarded. - -Mr. SMITH, of New Hampshire, said, he had not intended to have delivered -his sentiments on the question before the committee, but as he did not -fully agree in opinion with any gentleman who had spoken, it became -necessary for him to express the grounds of his opinion. This he would -do as briefly as possible. - -As this question involved the constitutional powers of the House, he -viewed it as important; it was a delicate question. We were called upon -to decide as to our own powers. For these reasons he thought that the -discussion should be conducted with moderation, coolness, and candor; -that such a temper was most favorable to truth. However gentlemen might -differ, he observed, on other subjects, in this we are all agreed, that, -in forming our judgments on all such questions, the constitution must be -our sole guide. It was this instrument, he said, which defines the -powers given to the General Government, and which distributes these -powers among the several departments. If the constitution had not -assigned to each its peculiar portion of power, these departments, like -the original elements, would be engaged in a perpetual war for power. -All would be confusion, disorder, and anarchy. He proposed, in the first -place, to give what he conceived to be the true exposition of the -constitution, on the subject of Treaties in general. He should then, he -said, state as correctly as possible the exposition or construction of -the constitution contended for by the gentleman opposed to him. He -lamented that he could not do this with greater accuracy. The gentlemen -had not agreed among themselves. He could only state what seemed to be -the general current of opinion. The construction which he advocated was, -that, by the Constitution of the United States, the power of making -Treaties is exclusively vested in the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the -Senate. That this power extends to all kinds of Treaties--of Peace, of -Alliance, of Amity, of Commerce and Navigation, and embraces all those -subjects, and comprehends all those objects, which can with propriety be -the subject of convention or compact between nations; that is, every -thing in which they have a mutual or common interest. That a compact so -made which does not change the constitution, and which does not palpably -and manifestly betray or sacrifice the private interests of the State, -(which is invalid on natural principles,) is binding on the nation -without any sanction on the part of the House of Representatives. That -such a Treaty is by the constitution paramount to the constitution and -laws of the several States; that the Judges in the several States are -bound to obey it. That it is by the reason and nature of the thing -paramount to a law of the United States, and abrogates and annuls all -pre-existing laws contrary to it, and, as long as it remains in force, -limits and restricts the power of the Legislature of the United States -to pass any laws in contravention of it. That, when such a Treaty -requires money to be provided, or rather Legislative acts to be -performed, it is the duty of the Legislature to provide and appropriate -the money in the same manner as it is their duty to provide and -appropriate money for the payment of our debts. That the nation must -judge whether it be constitutionally formed or not; whether the -stipulations contained in it be such as in good faith they are bound to -execute, and whether any circumstances have happened which would justify -a non-observance of it. That on these subjects they must exercise a -sound discretion. That neither the nation, nor any departments of the -Government, are at liberty to reject a Treaty merely because it is a -hard bargain. - -The doctrine on the other side is-- - -That the power to make Treaties is limited to such objects as are not -comprehended and included in the specified powers given to Congress by -the constitution; or, that a Treaty which comprehends or embraces any -such object is not valid; that is, not the supreme law of the land, -until the House of Representatives have added their sanction to it; or, -if this be not admitted, that the House of Representatives, by the -theory of our constitution, have check on the Treaty-making power, in -providing and appropriating money necessary to carry a Treaty into -effect; which power, it is admitted on all hands, they possess; and thus -in this way control the doings of the PRESIDENT and Senate, and can -reject a Treaty, or at least certain parts of it. That they can and -ought to do this if they believe the Treaty to be a bad one, though not -injurious in an extreme, such as manifestly betraying or sacrificing the -private interest of the State, (which by the Law of Nations nullifies -such a compact,) and which on all hands would readily be admitted as a -sufficient cause for refusing to carry it into execution. - -Mr. WILLIAM LYMAN began with remarking, that the gentlemen opposed to -the resolution had at first contended, that the House had not a -constitutional right to require papers of the Executive, relative to any -subject whatever; and that if a requisition was made, it would be -discretionary with the Executive, whether it should be complied with or -not. - -To this he replied, that the House possessed the power of impeachment -solely, and that this authority certainly implied the right to inspect -every paper and transaction in any department, otherwise the power of -impeachment could never be exercised with any effect. But not to rely -solely on this, he recollected one case, he said, perfectly in point, -which was in the correspondence of the former Secretary of State (Mr. -JEFFERSON) with the British Minister, communicated to the House. From -dates and references, there appeared in that correspondence a chasm. The -House, therefore, passed a resolution requesting the Executive to lay -before them what had been omitted; and further, the resolution in that -case was offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. SMITH,) who -was now so vehemently opposed to the present. The right of calling for -papers was sanctioned, he said, by the uniform and undeniable practice -of the House ever since the organization of the Government; they had -called for papers and information whenever it was judged expedient; and -he asserted, that the House had the fullest right to the possession of -any papers in the Executive department; they were constituted the -especial guardians of the people for that purpose; and he would -undertake to say, that this was the first time it had ever been -controverted. - -In order to ascertain the powers of the House, he would advert to the -constitution. In the first article and first section, it was declared, -"that all Legislative powers therein granted, were vested in a Congress, -to consist of a Senate and House of Representatives;" and in the eighth -section of the same article, the powers granted were defined and -specified, such as to lay and collect taxes, borrow money, regulate -commerce, and to exercise other important powers enumerated in the -several clauses of that important section. He said it was unnecessary to -read them, as they had been so frequently referred to in the course of -the debate; but he would request gentlemen to pause and reflect whether -it could be supposed that this section was not to be efficacious and -operative; was it possibly conceivable that a section so definite and so -important had been introduced in the constitution merely for the purpose -of being nullified and rendered nugatory by a subsequent article or -section? The very supposition, he said, appeared to him the height of -absurdity, and an affront to common sense; and yet this would be the -case, if the doctrines advanced were true, viz: that Treaties, when made -and ratified by the PRESIDENT and Senate, were supreme law, and that -they controlled and repealed all laws that stood in their way. Congress -could neither regulate commerce, borrow money, prescribe rules of -naturalization, nor legislate on any other subject, because the -PRESIDENT and Senate, by Treaty, would abrogate them all. It was in vain -to consult the House of Representatives in the formation of laws, if -they thus were liable to be annulled at the pleasure of the PRESIDENT -and Senate. The present question, he said, was not, whether the House -should make Treaties, but whether the PRESIDENT and Senate should make -laws; all the power contended for on the part of the House was the power -of self-preservation; it was a repelling power, a power to prevent the -PRESIDENT and Senate, under the color of making Treaties, from making -all the laws. A gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. GRISWOLD) had said, that -the Legislative power occupied all ground, and was vested in Congress; -and that the Treaty-making power occupied all ground, and was vested in -the PRESIDENT and Senate; and that although Congress, who were the -agents for the people, should make laws, yet, that the PRESIDENT and -Senate, who were also their agents, might, by Treaty, repeal them. This, -Mr. L. said, contradicted a sound axiom, and one he had never before -heard controverted, viz: that it required the same power to repeal as to -make a law. Such incongruities as the gentleman had advanced, Mr. L. -said, could never be reduced to practice; two persons could not be -possessed fully and completely of the same thing and at the same time. -The gentleman could never reconcile his positions, the one would -certainly defeat the other; upon his construction, the Treaty-making -power must absorb the Legislative power, or the Legislative power would -absorb the Treaty-making power. - -It appeared, therefore, to him, that constitutions, laws, and all -writings, ought to receive such interpretation and construction as to -render them consistent with themselves; and that it was highly -presumptive a construction was erroneous when it produced an absurd -conclusion. If the several parts of the constitution were compared and -critically examined, the determination must be, that, although the -PRESIDENT and Senate could make Treaties, yet it could not be intended, -those Treaties that entrenched on the specific Legislative powers of -Congress, unless with their concurrence and consent; otherwise, it -followed, that, although the three branches were consulted in the -enacting laws, two might repeal them. But it had been asserted that this -power, insisted upon on the part of the House, was a novel doctrine, -introduced merely upon the spur of the present occasion; notwithstanding -which, it had been proved by several gentlemen who had spoken upon the -question, that this interpretation was given to the constitution in most -of the State Conventions at the time of its adoption; that the same -interpretation had also been given, at that time, by the writers both -for and against its adoption. It had appeared, from the extracts of -publications at that period, that whatever might have been the diversity -of opinion in other respects relative to the constitution, that, in this -construction, at least, both its friends and opposers perfectly agreed. -This principle, then, being thus settled and understood, it remained -only to show that it had been invariably admitted and recognized from -the first organization of the Government until this time. The first -Treaty that had been made under this constitution, he said, was that -with the Creek Indians, in the year 1789; previously to the making of -which, the PRESIDENT communicated the subject to Congress; an extract -from which communication he would read, viz: "If it should be the -judgment of Congress, that it would be most expedient to terminate all -differences in the Southern district, and to lay the foundation for -future confidence by an amicable Treaty with the Indian tribes in that -quarter, I think proper to suggest," &c. Here, Mr. L. said, he wished it -might be particularly noticed, that this subject was expressly referred -to the judgment of Congress to determine on its expediency or -inexpediency, and for what purpose, he would ask, was it referred? If -the Senate and PRESIDENT possessed the full power of making Treaties, -there could be no occasion for consulting the House of Representatives; -and yet, in this case, the first that presented itself, it had been -conceived necessary. In consequence of this communication, Congress had -judged it expedient to hold the Treaty; and on the 20th of August, the -same year, enacted a law in which the sum of twenty thousand dollars was -appropriated for that purpose; and, in conformity thereto, the PRESIDENT -appointed Commissioners and gave them instructions, which instructions -had been also communicated to Congress, from which he would also read -one paragraph; it was as follows: "You will observe that the whole sum -that can be constitutionally expended for the proposed Treaty shall not -exceed twenty thousand dollars." On this, he said, any commentary was -unnecessary, as the principle that the Legislative power operated to -restrain the power of making Treaties, was so fully and explicitly -recognized and admitted by the PRESIDENT himself. By pushing inquiry -further, it would be found that, in January, 1790, in consequence of -communications from the Executive which were referred to a select -committee, and a report made thereon, the House came to the following -resolution, to wit: "That provision ought to be made by law for holding -a Treaty with the Wabash, Miami, and other Indian tribes north-west of -the river Ohio." In March following, a law was made, the title of which -was "An act entitled an act providing for holding a Treaty to establish -peace with certain Indian tribes." - -In March, 1791, the sum of twenty thousand dollars was appropriated for -obtaining a recognition of the Treaty with the Emperor of Morocco. In -March, 1793, one hundred thousand dollars were appropriated to defray -the expense of a Treaty with the Indian tribes north-west of the river -Ohio. - -Thus it was apparent that laws had always been deemed necessary to -provide for holding Treaties and for defraying the expenses thereof.[71] - -MARCH 17.--In Committee of the Whole, on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution. - -Mr. REED said, he saw no necessity for the papers referred to in the -resolution. If the constitutionality of the Treaty should be questioned, -or the propriety of making appropriations, these questions, he -conceived, must be determined by comparing the Treaty with the -constitution, and by attending to those stipulations contained in the -Treaty itself. - -It was not his intention to have troubled the committee by speaking on -this occasion; but perceiving that some gentlemen, in the course of the -debate, had gone further into the opposite extremes than he was prepared -at present to follow them, he felt as if he ought to express his own -sentiments with regard to the constitutional rights of that House -relative to the Treaty in question. The Treaty was undoubtedly -negotiated, ratified, and promulgated by constitutional authority. The -PRESIDENT, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, was, -in his opinion, unquestionably that authority which the United States -had authorized to make Treaties. But still it seemed taken for granted -that some agency of that House, in its Legislative capacity, would be -needed in order to carry the aforesaid Treaty into effect. A question, -therefore, arose, viz: Was that House, in all such cases, bound and -obliged to put so implicit and absolute a confidence in the Executive or -in Treaties as would render it entirely unnecessary to have any opinion -of their own about them, or the probable consequences of their -operation? For his part, if he had never seen the Treaty in -contemplation, and were perfectly ignorant of its contents, or, if he -fully believed, as a citizen, that it was unconstitutional, or -calculated to ruin, or very materially injure the country, he should not -think himself justifiable in voting to appropriate money for the purpose -of carrying it into effect. It had been conceded by gentlemen that if a -Treaty were evidently unconstitutional, it would not be wrong to -withhold appropriations; and he conceived that a Treaty might possibly -be so injurious in its effects as to justify such a measure. Supposing -such a possible event should ever actually happen, did not the right of -refusing to legislate in support of the said Treaty involve the right of -previously examining all Treaties which need the aid of the Legislature, -and of judging for themselves whether it would be proper or improper to -make laws for the purpose of carrying them into effect? - -In making Treaties the Executive would use his own discretion, keeping -within the limits prescribed for him by the constitution. In making laws -the Legislature must use their own discretion, always keeping within -those limits and bounds which the constitution had fixed for them. He -said, the discretionary right here contended for was not the right of -doing wrong; it was not the right of violating the constitution; it was -not the right of supporting a Treaty which ought to be defeated, nor of -defeating a Treaty which ought to be supported; but, simply the right of -judging for themselves, whether they ought, by their own act and deed, -in the character of Legislators, to appropriate by law such sums of -money as would be needed in order to support an existing Treaty, all -things and circumstances relating thereto being suitably examined and -properly considered. Perhaps it would be objected, that the constitution -nowhere expressly gave the Legislators that right. He answered, the -right was not precluded, but implied, and, in some respects, evidently -one of the original and essential rights of man; a law of nature, prior -and superior to all other laws; a law never to be transgressed in any -station whatsoever. Individuals, in many cases at least, had a right to -exercise their own discretion with respect to the propriety of -submitting to a civil law or of risking the penalty, the consequence of -disobedience; and, as a branch of the Legislature, he believed they had -a right to deliberate and consult, among other things, the expediency -and duty of making or of refusing to make appropriations, even in the -case of a Treaty. It appeared to him that, in legislating, the -Legislature should have this right of judging for themselves with -respect to the propriety of making or refusing to make any law -whatsoever. In most cases their duty would perhaps appear plain and -obvious, particularly in the case of appropriating money where a law or -Treaty actually existed. However, the obligation did not arise wholly -from the circumstance of an existing law, but partly from the nature, -reasonableness, and tendency of the thing itself. - -A Treaty negotiated by constitutional authority was, he contended, a -solemn compact between two nations. It was an important consideration; -but he thought they might, with propriety, attend to other -considerations, for and against it, especially when their own aid was -required, in order to carry it fully into effect. This he conceived was -the right of the House, and no encroachment upon the prerogative of the -other branches. An appropriation was a specific sum, appropriated by a -particular law to a particular purpose. - -The right of appropriating the public money was not a natural right, but -a right derived from the constitution; and the Legislature were to -exercise that right according to the honest dictates of their own best -discretion; excepting those instances in which they were expressly -restricted by the constitution itself, as in the cases of compensation -for the services of the President of the United States, and for the -services of the Judges. Congress might deliberate and act discretionally -in stating at first their salaries. - -Mr. TRACY said, he felt a diffidence in giving his sentiments in that -House, which was much increased when he considered the ability with -which the question had already been discussed, and the length of time it -had consumed; but the magnitude of the question would justify him, in -his own opinion, for asking of the committee to indulge him with a small -portion of their time and attention. - -This was the first time, since the adoption of the present Government, -that a discussion of the important constitutional question of the extent -of the Treaty-making power could have taken place, as it respected a -foreign nation; and, of course, would probably form a precedent for all -future inquiries of a similar nature. - -The constitutional rights of the House of Representatives to interfere -with Treaties, might properly be considered in two points of view: - -1. Had they a right to assist in the formation of Treaties in such a -manner as that a Treaty would be incomplete without their sanction -officially given? And, - -2. Had they a right to refuse appropriations of moneys, (if necessary to -carry into effect some provisions in a Treaty,) and in that way defeat -its operation? - -He acknowledged, if the first position could be supported, the right to -call for the papers would be conclusive; but, he contended, they could -not be wanted on the latter ground. - -If the constitution was examined, it would be found the Treaty-making -power was given to the PRESIDENT; and no interference, or right given to -any other men or body of men but to two-thirds of the Senate, and that -by way of consent or advice. Could it be pretended there was a shadow of -authority given to the House of Representatives? - -In the constitution it is said, "all Legislative powers herein granted -shall be vested in a Congress," &c. Would it be pretended, had the -constitution gone no further, that the then thirteen independent -sovereign States, by that part of it, had parted with the Treaty-making -power? No! they reserved a great share of Legislative power to -themselves, and delegated it to Congress only in certain cases, best -calculated, in their opinions, to advance their own happiness; and -unquestionably reserved every right, power, and sovereignty, which they -did not expressly give away by the constitution itself. The powers of -legislation are the powers of making statutes in all cases respecting -men and things within the jurisdiction of the Legislature; but it could -by no means in its nature comprehend the Treaty-making power, which is -the power of contracting or making bargains in the name of a nation, as -a moral person, with another nation or moral person, for their mutual -benefit, and to be binding and operative on them, as parties to the -contract or bargain. And although this had binding force on the nation, -when once formed and completed, yet it was not a Legislative act. But -the constitution went further: it had actually designated the PRESIDENT, -with the advice of the Senate, to be a Plenipotentiary for the formation -of Treaties. _Vattel_, page 179, speaking of the various customs of -nations, in the deposit of this power, says: - - "All conductors of States (meaning the Executives) have not - the powers, of themselves, of making public Treaties: some - are obliged to take the advice of a Senate, or of the - Representatives of a nation. In the fundamental laws of - each State we must see what is the power of contracting, - with validity, in the name of a State." - -He supposed, by "fundamental laws," _Vattel_ must mean the constitution -of a State; if so, it will not follow that the supreme Legislative or -Executive power of a State, as such, have necessarily the power of -making Treaties; it might be, and in most countries was, an object of -precise delegation, and probably always, or certainly more commonly, -given to the Executive. This constitution had precisely given it to the -Executive, subjoining the advice and consent of the Senate; and in this -particular, and in no other, had the individual sovereignties delegated -all their power without limitation. It was necessary and proper this -power should be lodged somewhere, and equally necessary it should be -entire and unlimited, to meet every exigency that the welfare of the -nation might require. It had been said, that general expressions of -power would be limited by specific: this was a general truth, but he -denied the application which had been attempted. It was said, the -Treaty-making power is a general power; the Congress has a specific -power to regulate commerce, &c. Of course, the specific power to -regulate commerce will check the operation of a Treaty of a commercial -nature. He said this part of the subject had been so ably and -conclusively managed by a gentleman from New Hampshire, yesterday, (Mr. -SMITH,) that he would not exhaust the patience of the committee by going -over the same ground. He would however observe, that by the common rule -of construction, all the powers given to the PRESIDENT which could, and -in their nature would, check or operate on legislation, must be -considered as a specific portion of power carved out of the general -power given in the former part of the instrument. The general powers of -legislation first given to Congress, and in the next place specific -powers given to the PRESIDENT, could not fail to lead the mind directly -to such a construction. "All Legislative powers, &c., are vested in a -Congress," but the PRESIDENT has a qualified and specific check. Power -to regulate commerce with foreign nations is vested in Congress, yet the -specific power of contracting, bargaining, or making a Treaty, is, so -far forth as it may touch Legislative points, a specific check upon it. -Yet he acknowledged this was not his chief reliance. The nature of the -case was such, that whatever internal regulations, or those relating to -external and foreign commercial subjects, which may have become objects -of Legislative attention, oppose or come in competition with a contract -or bargain about the same things, must give way. It does not exclude -legislation from the object of foreign commerce, but establishes certain -points within which it shall operate, and which it cannot violate. The -thirteen sovereignties possessing all the power, gave to Congress a -certain portion of Legislative authority; but they certainly could give -to the Executive, or any other body, the power to make Treaties. This he -contended they had done, by the words of the constitution, in an -unlimited manner. - -It had been said, that the constitution was similar to that of Great -Britain in the part respecting Treaties. This, he contended, was an -incorrect statement: in his opinion they were very different. The -constitution of Great Britain was formed almost entirely of usages. It -had been, for a great length of time, the usage for the King to lay -before Parliament, for their approbation, Treaties--especially those of -a commercial nature. If this was a usage, all that could be said of it -was, that it was a part of their constitution. He supposed this right -had been given by the Crown, at some time, to obtain a grant of money; -but he could not recollect that the Parliament, with all their -pretensions to a right of rejecting Treaties, had ever exercised it. -They generally made a pretext of dislike to a Treaty to change the -Administration. This had been often done; it was on the Treaty of Peace -of 1783. The Treaty of Utrecht, which was concluded in 1713, had been -cited as an instance of rejection by the British Parliament. It was a -fact, in that instance, that nothing was rejected but a conditional -Treaty. In forming the Treaty, there were many distinct parts: one part -of it was a Commercial Treaty between England and France, separately -signed and conditional--that is, "within the space of two months after a -law shall pass in Great Britain, whereby it shall be sufficiently -provided, &c., the general tariff made in France, &c., shall take place -there again, &c." The law did not pass in Great Britain, and of course -the Commercial Treaty failed. Mr. T. said he had searched all the -Treaties made by Great Britain since the Treaty of Munster, which, if -his memory was accurate, was concluded in 1648, and could not find an -instance of the Parliament's refusing their assent to a Treaty made -unconditionally; and he really believed, if they practised fully on the -right they claimed, it would very soon destroy their Government. It had -been said, _Blackstone_ in his Commentaries had defined the powers of -the King of Great Britain to be unlimited in the making of Treaties. He -observed, that, let _Blackstone_ or any other Crown lawyer say what he -would in favor of prerogative, it was well known the usage had been to -submit to Parliament the consideration of Treaties, and that usage was a -part of their constitution; and he rejoiced, that in that particular the -constitution of his country was different. Gentlemen had said, Shall -this House not have as much power respecting Treaties as the House of -Commons in Great Britain? This question was both improper in itself, and -calculated to mislead. Were we in convention, and forming a -constitution, it might have weight; but in a cool discussion of a -constitution already formed and adopted, and the question is, What -powers are given? it could not be proper. And it ought to be remembered -that Parliament, and not the Commons alone, had this right in Great -Britain. In defining the relative powers given by the Constitution, -there was danger of the popular branch making encroachments on the other -branches, under pretence of favoring the liberties of the people. This -pretence, however grateful it might sound in debate, he thought was but -a pretence. It was the duty of the House to make a stand against all -encroachments on their own rights, if any were attempted, but it must -equally be their duty to exercise great caution not to encroach on -others. He said, he considered the responsibility which was so very -necessary on those in the exercise of the Treaty-making power could not -exist if it was extended to the House of Representatives. - -He acknowledged if a Treaty was unconstitutional, it was not then a -contract of binding force, and of course contained no obligation of any -kind whatever; if a Treaty was so terrible in itself, and manifested -consequences ruinous to the nation, no argument could be drawn from such -a statement to establish general rules. The moral law had said, we shall -not kill, and yet a man may be placed in such a situation, as that he -not only may, but it becomes his duty to kill; could it be said a -general right to kill is proved by this concession? But could gentlemen -seriously say, we now wanted these papers, mentioned in the resolution, -to assist us in determining upon the question of appropriation? He -thought not. He supposed the first extensive and unlimited right of -interfering in the making of a Commercial Treaty could alone justify the -call, and he believed that ground must be given up. He said his -colleagues (Messrs. SMITH and GRISWOLD) had asserted no other doctrines -than such as he now advocated, and yet they had been accused of saying -that this House had no will of their own, but must in all cases -implicitly obey the PRESIDENT and Senate. The construction he had given -to the constitution he believed to be just, and trusted he could be -under no necessity of declaring the purity of his intentions, as he did -not doubt but every member of the House was guided in the investigation -by the purest motives. - -Mr. S. SMITH said, that at the present state of the discussion, little -was left but gleanings, and to bear testimony against a doctrine that -appeared to him big with consequences fatal to the true interests of the -country. He would not pursue the sophistry of the gentleman last up (Mr. -TRACY) through all its windings and turnings; he would only observe that -the gentleman had read some, and quoted much to prove that Treaties were -the supreme law--a doctrine that was admitted by all, that is, when -under the authority of the United States. - -He said the resolution requested certain papers to be laid before the -House. What had been the custom of the House heretofore? Invariably to -ask for all and every paper that might lead to information. He well -recollected that, in 1793, a great ferment had arisen in the public mind -in consequence of the Proclamation of Neutrality, (which had always -appeared to him to be a wise measure,) that on the meeting of Congress a -great number of useful papers relative to our situation with respect to -foreign nations were submitted, some of them of a most confidential -nature, relating to Treaties then depending, particularly that with -Spain. The PRESIDENT was not afraid to place his confidence in that -House, and he was right; the public mind was restored to quiet, and the -people of Kentucky (then restless) were satisfied that the Executive -were doing every thing in their power to obtain the free navigation of -the Mississippi. The PRESIDENT went further; he sent a special agent to -Kentucky to communicate to that Government the line of conduct then -pursuing for their welfare. Had the public mind been less disturbed on -the late Treaty than in 1793? He thought not; and that every paper which -would tend to satisfy that the Treaty was expedient, or to give -information on a subject that must be discussed before that House, might -with propriety be asked for. - -A gentleman from Vermont (Mr. BUCK) repeated by another from South -Carolina (Mr. SMITH) said, to vote for this resolution would be treason -against the laws and constitution. Why this harsh language? Did it lead -to a discovery of truth? Where did these gentlemen find that definition -of treason? Not in the constitution, for there it was properly defined. - -Mr. S. said, gentlemen had taken a ground that appeared alarming, viz: - -That the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate may, by the aid of a -Treaty, do any thing, and every thing, not morally impossible, (provided -they do not infringe on the constitution,) and that the immediate -Representatives forming this House, have only to be informed thereof, -and to obey. - -Let us pause for a moment, and ask, Was this possible? Could this be the -fair construction of our so much boasted constitution? If it should be, -he would not regret the services rendered his country during the late -glorious Revolution, nor the part he had taken to promote the adoption -of the constitution; nor would he, by inflammatory speeches within, nor -his actions without doors, do any thing that should tend to destroy the -harmony then subsisting, or to disunite a people whom nature and -relative wants seemed to have connected together; but he would endeavor, -in a constitutional manner, to obtain amendments to the constitution, -which would prevent the evil in future. But is there occasion for -amendments to the Treaty-making power? He thought not. There were checks -and balances sufficient in the constitution to prevent the evils that -might arise out of it. He said, he could offer nothing new, but would -pursue the train of reasoning began by a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. -MADISON.) - -In the eighth section of the first article of the constitution, Congress -have power to lay duties, &c., &c., but all duties shall be uniform -throughout the United States: - -Can regulate trade with foreign nations: - -Can establish a uniform rule of naturalization. - -Congress, then, although they have the power to lay taxes and duties, -and to make laws of naturalization, are bound to make them uniform; and -in another article, are prevented from giving a preference by any -regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those -of another. But the Treaty-making power is not so confined; it may -relieve one of our ports from this uniformity of duties, or one of the -States from the uniformity of naturalization; that is, it may relieve -goods imported in British bottoms into New York, from the one-tenth -extra duty, and let it remain on all the other ports of the Union. But, -say gentlemen, it is unfair to reason against the use of power by its -probable abuses. He thought it advisable to guard against abuses; but -has this abuse not already taken place? He thought it had. Not with -respect to a port of the consequence of New York; that would have been -too palpable; but on the Lakes, by the third article of the Treaty, -goods imported to the territory in that quarter, in British bottoms, are -subjected to no higher duty than goods imported in American vessels to -the Atlantic ports. Here appeared a departure from that uniformity -required by the constitution; here appeared a preference given to the -ports of one State over those of another; and yet gentlemen contend, -that the House have no right to inquire into the business. Indeed, so -delicate was one gentleman (Mr. BUCK) on the subject, that he opposed -committing the Algerine Treaty, lest it should establish a claim to -investigation! It was true, the trade on the Lakes was small, but it -would increase. Thus, although Congress were very wisely restricted, -when laying duties, to make them uniform, yet the PRESIDENT and Senate -would be capable, by the assistance of a foreign power, to destroy that -uniformity. - -Mr. S. then stated, that he did not mean, and he hoped he should not be -understood to preclude himself from voting to carry the Treaty into -effect. He held himself entirely open to conviction; and if he should -find that the same was expedient, whatever might be his opinion at -present on the instrument, (and in truth he did not think it good,) yet -he would keep himself at full liberty to act as he might think most to -the interest of this country, when that subject should come before the -House. - -MARCH 18.--In Committee of the Whole, on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution: - -Mr. ISAAC SMITH did not pretend to prescribe limits to other men's -faith, but he never could believe that men, as wise as those who compose -the convention, would have left so important a regulation, as was now -contended for by some gentlemen, to mere uncertain construction. He -believed, if they intended that House should have had an agency in the -making of Treaties, they would have said so in express terms. Had they -done so? Nothing like it. So far from it, that they had unequivocally -appropriated the Treaty-making power to the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of -the Senate, in terms as express and positive as words could form: and -the gentleman in opposition could not, did not deny it. But, say they, -this power may be abused, shamefully abused, and, therefore, we will -construe it out of the hands the people have placed it in. We will -assume and declare ourselves the sole guardians of the people, and we -will cry out liberty, liberty; and, as the people love the sound, (he -hoped they would always love the substance,) perhaps they will believe -us. Here rests the fallacy. The people knew, whether they knew or not, -that they chose the PRESIDENT, and they firmly believe, as well they -may, that he is their guardian. The people knew, also, that they chose -the Senators, and they likewise think they are their guardians. How we, -said he, became sole guardians, will require a modesty superior to that -of New England to explain. The people have declared that the PRESIDENT -and Senate shall make Treaties, without a single exception, and, lest -there should be any mistake or cavilling about it, they have put it in -written words, as they thought, too plain to be doubted, too positive to -be contradicted. It appeared to him that it was a sufficient answer, -though a short one, to all the laborious arguments had in favor of their -interference, to say, that the people wills it otherwise: _sic volo, sic -jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas_. If they had under consideration -alterations or amendments to the constitution, those arguments might, -perhaps, be proper; but, as matters now stand, they are mere -inapplicable declamation. - -Mr. LIVINGSTON said, that the very able support this resolution had -received, might seem to release him from any obligation of speaking in -its defence; nor would he now trouble the committee with any -observations on the subject, if those he made on the introduction of the -business had not been misstated, and his subsequent explanation partly -suppressed. He had stated, when he had laid the resolution on the table, -as a reason for requesting the papers, that important and -constitutional questions would probably arise on the discussion of the -Treaty. It had been represented, (certainly from misapprehension, not -design,) that he confined the use of the papers to the elucidation of a -constitutional question only; and it had been asked, with an air of -great triumph, how the instructions and correspondence could throw any -light on the question of constitutionality, to decide which nothing was -necessary but a comparison of the Treaty with the constitution? Mr. L. -said he had not confined the utility of the papers to that point, but -that, if he had, it would not be difficult to suppose a case in which -they were necessary to determine the constitutionality of the Treaty. -The constitution, he said, gave to the PRESIDENT the power to make -Treaties, "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." Men, -respectable for their talents and patriotism, had supposed that, by the -true construction of this clause, the PRESIDENT could make no Treaty -unless by the previous advice and consent of the Senate; in other words, -that the Senate should advise the making of a Treaty, which they could -only do before it was commenced; and should consent to it by a -ratification after it was concluded. He would give no positive opinion -on this subject, but supposed it a point worthy the attention of the -House. The construction, he said, appeared reasonable, and had been -heretofore sanctioned by practice. Two instances he could recollect; one -was in the Treaty of Holston, where Governor Blount was "vested with -full powers and specially empowered by and with the advice and consent -of the Senate." The other instance was found in the answer of the -PRESIDENT to the French Minister, who offered to enter into negotiations -for a Treaty of Commerce, which the PRESIDENT declined, by referring him -to the meeting of the Senate, which was not then in session. If the -PRESIDENT supposed he could not commence a negotiation without the -concurrence of the Senate, it gave force to this construction; and, if -it was a true one, nothing was more demonstrable than that the papers -were necessary to determine whether the Treaty in this point had been -constitutionally made. - -Two positions had been assumed, differing not materially in the power -ascribed to Treaties, but distinguished chiefly by the mode of applying -this power. - -By some it was contended, that the interference of the Legislature was -necessary in some instances, but that the Treaty operated by way of -moral obligation, to enforce the necessary steps to give it validity; -and that though there is a physical power of refusal, yet it ought in no -case to operate against the superior obligation. - -Others had asserted, that Treaties being the supreme law, might operate -directly, without the intervention of any other body. That where -existing Legislative acts opposed their execution, the Treaty was -paramount, and could repeal them. - -These positions were in fact the same, because, if a Treaty was, at all -events, to have effect, it was perfectly immaterial, whether it operated -directly by its own power, or indirectly by the instrumentality of -another body; both, he thought, equally subversive of the principles of -the Government; but the first was most degrading to the Legislative -dignity. Nor could he discover from what part of the constitution it was -inferred. Wherever, in that instrument, a duty was imposed, it was -clearly and explicitly assigned, as in case of the PRESIDENT's -compensation, that of the judges, and many other instances. It is not, -then, to be conceived, that so important an obligation as this should -have been left to implication. If it had been intended so to annihilate -this discretion, the same language would have been used, "Congress shall -pass laws to carry every Treaty into effect," but nothing of this kind -appears. Again, if it had been intended to make Treaties paramount over -laws, it would seem to have been the more simple mode, to have dispensed -with their interference. Why leave a phantom of discretion, an unreal -mockery of power, in the hands of the Legislature? In order to get rid -of this difficulty, some gentlemen seem willing to allow a species of -volition, but it was a pittance that would be scarcely worth accepting. -In cases of extreme necessity, and in others, where, from corruption or -other good cause, the compact is void, this House, they say, may refuse -to carry it into effect. In the first case, where it is impossible to -give efficacy to a Treaty, the power of refusing it was surely of little -value. And where the compact is void in itself, the liberty of not being -bound by it, would scarcely be contended for. If the subject were less -serious, Mr. L. said, one would be tempted to smile at the efforts that -are made to reconcile the constitutional predestination contended for, -with the free agency of discretion. It was as difficult to be -understood, as the most entangled theological controversy, and, like -most disputants in that science, they concluded with anathemas against -all who could not comprehend, or would not believe them. We have a -discretion, whether to act or not, say they; but we are under an -obligation to act, and if we do not, we are guilty of treason and -rebellion. This was the same kind of discretion a man has, whether he -will commit murder or let it alone; he may do it, but if he does, he -will be hanged. This was a worse alternative than that generally called -Hobson's choice--that was, "this or nothing;" but here we are told, "do -this, or be hanged for a traitor." So that hereafter, when any one -intended to express an inevitable necessity, he would call it -Congressional discretion. - -If, then, the Treaty does not operate by way of obligation on the -Legislative power, let us, said Mr. L., examine, whether, as is -contended, "a Treaty is paramount to a law, and can repeal it, though -it, itself, cannot be acted on by the Legislative power;" this, he said, -was the most important question that had ever been agitated within -these walls. It evidently tended to the substitution of a foreign power, -in lieu of the popular branch; it was replete with the most serious -evils. He could never suppose so great and pernicious an absurdity was -contemplated by the constitution; but, if such was the true -construction, great as the evil was, we must submit, until it could be -legally amended. - -The constitution gave all Legislative power to the Congress of the -United States; vested the power of making Treaties in the PRESIDENT and -Senate, and declared that the constitution, the laws made in pursuance -thereof, and Treaties made under the authority of the United States, -should be the supreme law of the land. He had always considered the -order in which this enumeration was made as descriptive of the relative -authority of each. 1st. The constitution, which no other act could -operate on. 2d. The laws made in pursuance thereof. 3d. Treaties, when -they contradicted neither; for, if no weight was given to this argument, -Treaties would be superior, both to the constitution and the laws, as -there is no restriction with respect to them, as in the case of laws, -that they be made pursuant to the constitution. He did not believe -gentlemen would contend for this absurdity; they must therefore refer to -the order of the enumeration, to measure the relative effect of the -constitution, laws, and Treaties. If the objects of Legislation and of -Treaty compact could be kept distinct, no question would arise, there -would be no pretext for interference; but they could not; almost every -object of legislation might also become that of compact with a foreign -power. - -But it was probable, Mr. L. said, that the Treaty power was intended to -be placed in the PRESIDENT and Senate to the same extent only in which -it existed in the Executive of Great Britain. The words of our -constitution on this point were the same made use of by British writers -in defining the corresponding power in their Government, and it seemed -evident that some of its features (and this was none of the least -prominent) were drawn from that original. He was happy that the parallel -was not perfect in other instances. He thought it completely so in this; -and that the practice therefore of that Government would, in some -measure, lead to the true construction of this. Aware of the weight of -precedents drawn from English history, gentlemen endeavored to weaken -them by a very ingenious argument: "The British Constitution," say they, -"is not written, it is formed of usages; if you prove, therefore, that -it is the usage for British Parliaments to sanction Treaties, you prove -it to be their constitution, but you do not prove it to be ours." It was -true, Mr. L. observed, that the English Constitution was formed partly -of immemorial usages; but it was also true, that those usages were -collected in books of authority, and that the different powers of -Government were generally designated, so that the leading points in -their constitution were as well known and defined as they were in that -of America. It had been shown by a reference to writers of the best -authority, that, by the Constitution of England, the power of making all -Treaties was in the King; but as the power of making all laws was in the -Parliament, this latter, as the greater power, controlled the former, -whenever it affected objects of legislation. Thus, in the Constitution -of the United States, he contended, the power of making Treaties, that -is, all Treaties, vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate; but, as all -Legislative power is vested in Congress, no Treaty operating upon any -object of legislation can take effect until it receives the sanction of -Congress. The practice, too, was the same. The King asserted his right -of making and completing Treaties, by not only concluding, but ratifying -them, before they were submitted to Parliament, but he believed no -Commercial Treaty was proclaimed as the law of the land before it had -received the sanction of Parliament. Indeed, it was impossible, in any -country, and under any constitution, where the Legislative and -Treaty-making powers are lodged in different hands, that any other -construction can be given without running into the absurdity he had -before hinted at, of making two different powers supreme over the same -object at the same time. Our ideas had been confounded by referring to -the practice of Governments where the two powers were united, and where -a ratification gave the consent of both. - -If, then, there was a perfect analogy between the power vested in the -Crown in England, and that delegated to the PRESIDENT and Senate in -America, on the subject of Treaties; and if the Parliament, by virtue of -its general Legislative authority, was in the practice of giving or -withholding its sanction to Treaties concluded by the King, it was but a -fair inference to say, that the same discretion existed in Congress. - -Some instances of the exercise of this power by Parliament, had been -before quoted by others. The inexecution of the Treaty of Utrecht, in -consequence of Parliamentary opposition, and the difficulties with which -the Commercial Treaty with France was carried through the House of -Commons, in 1787, had been already noticed. He would mention two other -precedents drawn from the same source equally striking, or perhaps more -so, as the course of proceeding there followed was precisely that which -was proposed by the resolution in debate. The first was the proceeding -on the Barrier Treaty, taken from the 5th vol. Parl. Debates, p. 43, -where the House of Commons began, by a resolution to address the Queen, -"that all instruction and orders given to the Plenipotentiaries that -transacted the Barrier Treaty, and also all Treaties mentioned and -referred to in the said Treaty, might be laid before the House, except -such Treaties as they already had." We are told in the subsequent page, -that on the 13th, that is, only two days after the request, "Mr. -Secretary St. John presented to the House, by Her Majesty's command, a -copy of the instructions to the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Townsend, -about the Barrier Treaty, extracts of letters from Mr. Boyle to Lord -Townsend, concerning the said Treaty; also a copy of the Preliminary -Articles, signed at the Hague; the titles of which copies and extracts -of letters were referred to the Committee of the whole House. After -this, it was resolved to present an address to Her Majesty, that the -letters written by Lord Townsend to Mr. Boyle, the Secretary of State, -dated the 1st and 26th of November, 1709, might be laid before the -House, which Mr. Secretary St. John accordingly did on the 14th of -February." After having obtained the papers, Mr. L. said, the House of -Commons proceeded to the consideration of the Treaty in Committee of the -Whole, and voted, 1st. That the Treaty contained articles destructive to -the trade and interest of Great Britain. 2d. That the negotiator had -acted without authority. 3d. That the advisers and negotiators were -enemies to the Queen and Kingdom. - -The Treaty being thus obstructed, the States General remonstrated to the -Queen on the subject; but, conscious that the Parliament were only -exercising a constitutional power, they make no complaints in their -memorial of any breach of faith, though the Treaty had been ratified. -They enter into the merits of the Treaty, offer to negotiate on the -obnoxious articles, and conclude with "entreating the continuance of Her -Majesty's friendship." - -This instance, then, said Mr. L., is complete to show the propriety of a -call for papers by the House of Commons; a ready compliance on the part -of the Crown, a deliberation on a ratified Treaty, a rejection of it, -and an acquiescence on the part of the foreign nation, without -remonstrance. - -The other instance was an address in the year 1714, requesting "the -Treaties of Peace and Commerce between Her Majesty and the King of -Spain, and the instructions given to Her Majesty's Ambassadors -thereupon, together with the copies of the King of Spain's ratifications -of the said Treaties, and the preliminaries signed by the Lord Lexington -and the Marquis of Bedmar, at Madrid, and all other agreements and -stipulations which had been made concerning the commerce between Great -Britain and Spain. 2dly. An account of what engagements of guaranty Her -Majesty had entered into by virtue of any Treaty with any foreign Prince -or State, from the year 1710. And 3dly. An account of what instances had -been used by Her Majesty for restoring to the Catalans their ancient -privileges, and all letters relating thereto. And then it was resolved, -to take into further consideration the Message that day sent from the -Lords upon Thursday next following." - -Objections had been raised to this construction, drawn from three -different sources. - -1. From the prevalent construction at the time of establishing the -constitution. - -2. From the practice of the Government since that period. - -3. From the present ideas entertained by the people of the United -States. - -1st. As to the construction generally received when the constitution was -adopted, Mr. L. did not conceive it to be conclusive, even if admitted -to be contrary to that now contended for; because he believed we were -now as capable at least of determining the true meaning of that -instrument, as the Conventions were; they were called in haste, they -were heated by party, and many adopted it from expediency, without -having fully debated the different articles. But he did not believe the -general construction at that time differed from the one he had adopted. -A member from Virginia (Mr. BRENT) had shown, by recurring to the -debates in the Convention of that State, and to other contemporaneous -productions, that the framers and friends to the constitution construed -it in the manner that we do; whilst its enemies endeavored to render it -odious and unpopular, by endeavoring to fix on it the contrary -construction. And as the friends to the constitution were the most -numerous, we ought rather to take the explanation under which a majority -accepted the constitution, as the true one, than to look for it in the -bugbears by which anti-Federalism endeavored to prevent its adoption. - -2d. The second argument that had been used to deprive the Legislature of -any right of interference, in cases of this kind, was drawn from the -uniform practice of the Government ever since its formation. The -gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) who made this objection, had -cited one instance of this practice in the resolution directing Treaties -to be published with the laws, and had adverted to the appropriations -for the Indian Treaties, (under the general head of the Military -Establishment,) as favoring his principle. As to the resolution, Mr. L. -said, there was no doubt that Treaties, when properly sanctioned, ought -to be observed, and therefore the resolution was proper, that they ought -to be promulgated. On the subject of appropriation, it had been well -observed by a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) that the House -exercised as much discretion in granting the supply, by way of addition -to the military appropriations, as if it had been given specially for -the purposes of the Treaty. But the truth is, said Mr. L., that an -accurate examination into the communications of the Executive in -analogous cases, and the proceedings of this House, will form a strong, -I think an irresistible, argument in favor of the resolution. It would -appear, he said, from the view he was about to take, that from the first -establishment of the constitution until the negotiation of this Treaty -was begun, the Executive had been in habits of free communication with -the Legislature as to our external relations; that their authority in -questions of commerce, navigation, boundary, and intercourse with the -Indian tribes, had been expressly recognized, even when difficulties on -these questions were to be adjusted by Treaty. - -The first case related to a provision for an Indian Treaty, and was -suggested by the PRESIDENT, in a Message of the 7th of August, 1789, in -which he says: "If it should be the judgment of Congress that it would -be most expedient to terminate all differences in the Southern District, -and to lay the foundation for future confidence by an amicable Treaty -with the Indian tribes in that quarter, I think proper to suggest the -consideration of the expediency of instituting a temporary commission -for that purpose, to consist of three persons, whose authority should -expire with the occasion." In consequence of this Message, Congress took -into consideration the expediency of the measure recommended to them, -and passed the act of the 26th of August, in the same year, -appropriating twenty thousand dollars for defraying the expense of -negotiating and treating with the Indian tribes, and authorizing the -appointment of commissioners. The PRESIDENT having appointed -commissioners to treat under the direction of the act, gave them -instructions, which were communicated to the House, and from which this -is an extract: "You will please to observe, that the whole sum that can -be constitutionally expended is twenty thousand dollars, and that the -same cannot be extended." Nothing having been effected by the -commissioners, the PRESIDENT mentions the subject again in his Address -to both Houses, on the 1st of January, 1792. In the month of March, in -the same year, the House of Representatives adopted the following -resolution, recommended by a select committee: "That provision ought to -be made by law for holding a Treaty to establish peace between the -United States and the Wabash, Miami, and other nations of Indians, -north-west of the river Ohio; also, for regulating trade and intercourse -with the Indian tribes, and the mode of extinguishing their claims to -lands within the limits of the United States." On the 29th March, -following, a bill passed the House of Representatives, the title of -which was amended in the Senate and passed, appropriating twenty -thousand dollars for purposes expressed in the preceding resolution. - -Mr. L. said this case was important, as it was the first communication -relative to a Treaty made under the constitution. An attentive -examination of its different parts would show that very different ideas -were then entertained from those which were now enforced. He would first -observe, that the discretion of the House of Representatives as to -commerce with foreign nations, stood precisely on the same footing with -that which they ought to exercise in regulating intercourse with the -Indian tribes; that if one could be done without their concurrence, by -Treaty, the other might also; and that, therefore, when the PRESIDENT -recognized their right to deliberate in one case, he virtually did it in -the other. Let us then attend to the language of the Message, said Mr. -L., and we shall find that right of deliberation most expressly -referred to. "If it should be the judgment of Congress that it would be -most expedient"--what can be more explicit than this language? And -again, "I think proper to suggest the consideration of the expediency of -instituting a temporary commission." Here the same discretion is not -only applied to, but the PRESIDENT, at that time supposing that no -implicated power could deprive Congress of the right to regulate trade -and intercourse with the Indian tribes, submitted to their consideration -the expediency of appointing commissioners. They passed the necessary -laws, and he instructed the commissioners, not in the language that is -now held, that they might stipulate for the payment of any sum, and that -Congress would be obliged to find the means; but he tells them, "the -only sum that can be constitutionally expended is twenty thousand -dollars, and that the same cannot be extended." Why, (if the doctrine is -true that we are under an obligation to comply with the terms of every -Treaty made by the PRESIDENT and Senate,) why did he say no further sum -could constitutionally be expended? If that doctrine were indeed true, -his language would have been, Use what money may be necessary, contract -for the payment of it in your Treaty, and Congress are constitutionally -obliged to carry your stipulations into effect. - -The resolution above quoted, Mr. L. said, was important, as it proved -that Congress then supposed that they ought not only to provide by law -for holding a Treaty with the Indians, but that they also had the power, -and ought to exercise it, of regulating trade and intercourse with the -same people, and of prescribing the mode of extinguishing their claims -to lands within the United States; but all this, said he, it is now -discovered may be done without their aid, by Treaty. - -The second instance of the exercise of this dreaded discretion, was in -the law of March 3d, 1791, appropriating twenty thousand dollars to -enable the PRESIDENT to effect a negotiation of the Treaty with Morocco. -This originated in the Senate, and is a decided proof that neither the -PRESIDENT nor Senate had at that period any idea of the moral obligation -that is now discovered, or they would, without the formality of a law, -have at once stipulated with the new Emperor for the payment of the -necessary sum, which must have been provided by the House. - -In a third case, the PRESIDENT had thought proper to take the sense of -that House in a matter that of all others demanded secrecy, and under -circumstances that would have prevented his making the application, if -he had conceived himself at liberty to act without their concurrence. He -adverted to the Message of 30th December, 1790, where the PRESIDENT -says: "I lay before you a Report of the Secretary of State, on the -subject of the citizens of the United States in captivity at Algiers, -that you may provide in their behalf what to you shall seem expedient." - -No act having been passed by Congress in consequence of this Message, -the PRESIDENT did not conceive himself authorized to bind the United -States by Treaty, for the necessary ransom of their citizens; and -therefore nothing was concluded until after a subsequent Message and -previous appropriation, in the year 1793, when another Message was sent -relative to the negotiations with Morocco and Algiers, then pending: -"While it is proper (he says) that our citizens should know that -subjects which so much concern their interests and their feelings, have -duly engaged the attention of their Legislature and Executive, it would -still be improper that some part of this communication should be made -known." Part of this Message, therefore, was confidentially -communicated, which shows, Mr. L. said, on some occasions, it was not -deemed imprudent to trust this House with the secrets of the Cabinet; -and in consequence of this Message, a law was passed, appropriating one -hundred thousand dollars for the purchase of a peace with the Algerines. -It was ostensibly appropriated to a more general purpose, but the intent -was well understood. - -The next transaction that he should quote, Mr. L. said, as favorable to -his doctrine, was the Message of the PRESIDENT of the 5th December, -1793, and the measure to which it gave rise. The PRESIDENT says: "As the -present situation of the several nations of Europe, and especially those -with which the United States have important relations, cannot but render -the state of things between them and us matter of interesting inquiry to -the Legislature, and may, indeed, give rise to deliberations to which -they alone are competent, I have thought it my duty to communicate to -them certain correspondence which has taken place." - -This Message, Mr. L. said, accompanied the papers relative to France, to -Great Britain, and to Spain; and a question would immediately occur, -what were the deliberations to which the PRESIDENT then thought the -Legislature alone was competent, and which he therefore thought it his -duty to communicate. All our disputes with the nations referred to in -the Message, were such as on the new construction of the Treaty power he -could have adjusted by compact, without any reference to the House of -Representatives; but it is plain, by the express words of the Message, -that he did not believe that construction. It was no answer, Mr. L. -said, to the argument drawn from this transaction, to say that the -PRESIDENT only submitted the question of War or Peace to the Legislature -by this Message. - -1. Because the Message related to the three principal nations in Europe, -and he never could have imagined that Congress would have deliberated on -going to war with them all. - -2. This was evidently not his intention, because as soon as measures -were proposed in that House, which he supposed would lead to a rupture -with one of those nations, all these measures were palsied by the -appointment of an Envoy, and the commencement of negotiation. - -It was clear, then, that the PRESIDENT thought the matters communicated -by his Message, which related to commerce and boundary, were -constitutionally vested in the discretion of Congress. The idea was -corroborated by the words of a Message relative to the negotiation with -Spain: - - "And, therefore, by and with the advice and consent of the - Senate, I appointed Commissioners Plenipotentiary for - negotiating and concluding a Treaty with that country, on - the several subjects of boundary, navigation, and commerce, - and gave them the instructions now communicated." - -Why, said Mr. L., communicate the instructions to the Ministers? Because -they related to commerce, to navigation, to boundary, on all which -subjects the PRESIDENT must have thought the Legislature had a right of -decision. He must have thought so at that period; but, unfortunately, -all precedent of free communication ended here; Mr. Jay's negotiation -began, and a different construction was assumed. - -From this view of the acts of Government, Mr. L. said, he trusted that a -far different impression would be made, than that the doctrine he -contended for was a new one, originating in opposition to the English -Treaty, and a desire to disorganize the Government. That, on the -contrary, it had been declared by the PRESIDENT, acquiesced in by the -Senate, and acted upon by the House of Representatives. - -MARCH 21.--In Committee of the Whole on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution: - -Mr. WILLIAMS observed much had been said upon the subject of the present -resolution, and so much time consumed, that he should confine his -observations within a narrower compass than he at first intended. - -It was contended that in a Republican Government there ought to be no -secrets; but he would ask whether it was not specified in the -constitution that secrecy should be observed on particular occasions? -and, had not his colleague (Mr. LIVINGSTON) quoted the secret Journals -of the House? He believed if the constitution of France were examined, -it would be found that their system admitted of secrets. He had the -honor, he said, to be upon a committee, before whom many papers were -laid, which it would be improper to publish. With respect to the present -papers, he did not think there were any secrets in them. He believed he -had seen them all. For the space of ten weeks any member of that House -might have seen them. It was not merely with respect to the present -papers that he opposed the motion, but because it would be establishing -a bad precedent; and, as they were a young Government, they ought to be -cautious how they established bad precedents. It was well known that in -the negotiations in time of war, confidential communications were -necessary; but if no papers were allowed to be kept secret, what person -would ever venture to make any such communication? Hence this country, -when in the greatest danger, may be much injured by improper -precedents. - -He quoted authorities to prove that there never was but one precedent in -Great Britain of a negotiator's papers being given up; that was in the -last year of the reign of Queen Anne when the Ministry were soon -afterwards obliged to fly their country. He was sorry that a gentleman -returned by the Republican interest of one of the first cities of the -Union should have had recourse to a desperate Tory faction for a -precedent. - -Some gentlemen had observed that the papers ought to be obtained, -because the PRESIDENT had intimated, in his Speech, that he would lay -the papers before the House with the Treaty; but they were mistaken in -their observations, because the papers had not been laid before us. - -A gentleman from Pennsylvania said, because the King of England laid the -papers relative to a negotiation before Parliament along with the Treaty -to which they related, they had also a right to papers, the Governments -being similar; but when the King did this, he informed them that he had -concluded such a Treaty; and after a thing was concluded, he did not -know what could remain for Parliament to do. He would refer to a recent -authority, and not go back to 1714; it was to the case of the Treaty -with Great Britain respecting American loyalists, when papers were -refused to be given up, and it was deemed a most inconsistent thing to -require them. This business caused great debates in Parliament, and the -motion for papers was lost, there being only sixty-three for it, and one -hundred and four against it. Mr. W. read the observations of different -members of Parliament on the occasion, and observed, that although he -was unwilling to quote precedents from a Government not similar to ours, -yet this was a case in point, and this Treaty was negotiated between Mr. -JAY, on the part of the United States, and Mr. OSWALD, on the part of -Great Britain. - -The resolution before them called for all papers, whether public or -private, except such as related to any existing negotiation; but as the -Treaty was completed, the resolution included all papers. He should have -had less objection to the motion, if the amendment proposed by the -gentleman from Virginia had been adopted. He did not see the use the -papers would be of if they were got. The House was not vested with -either the power to alter or amend the Treaty. But, say gentlemen, they -are wanted for information. But he believed they ought to form their -judgments of the Treaty from the instrument itself. Suppose I were to -employ an agent, and give him instructions to make a contract for me, on -condition that it should not be binding until I had approved it; and my -agent return and I approve of the contract, what light can be thrown -upon it by the instructions which were given to the agent? The -instrument alone was what must be had recourse to; because he had it in -his power to have withheld his sanction. - -If his information was right, when certain resolutions were brought -forward in the year 1793, a gentleman from Virginia said that Great -Britain would refuse to negotiate with this country; but immediately -upon the Treaty being made known, it was every thing that was bad. - -He would endeavor to answer some observations which had fallen from a -gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES.) It was asked if the Treaty power -could receive any check? He conceived the will of the people ought to be -obeyed. They had given power to the PRESIDENT and Senate to make -Treaties, which if not complied with, would be to oppose their will. In -speaking of the amendments proposed to the constitution by the -Legislature of Virginia, it was said they were only intended to make the -check more certain than at present; but he read the resolution, viz: -"That no Treaty containing any stipulations upon the subject of the -powers vested in Congress by the eighth section of the first article, -shall become the supreme law of the land, until it shall have been -approved in those particulars by a majority in the House of -Representatives. That the PRESIDENT, before he shall ratify any Treaty, -shall submit the same to the House of Representatives; and insisted that -it might be clearly deduced from them, that they did not conceive the -Treaty power to have any check in that House. That State had kept -uniformly the same ground in all their actions; but the different State -Legislatures to which their amendments had been proposed, had determined -the Treaty power rightly placed where it is at present. But because the -people will not agree that they should have a check upon the Treaty -power, gentlemen seem disposed to usurp it by their present doctrines." - -The same gentleman (Mr. GILES) observed, that the checks in the -Government of the United States had been completely routed for these six -years. He was exceedingly sorry that the PRESIDENT could bind that -House, but he said that was a sword that cut two ways. It was too late -in the day to assert this doctrine, when the people were become so -enlightened as to be better acquainted with the nature of Government, -and better educated, than the people of any other nation in the world. -They would, therefore, take care of themselves. - -He said that a gentleman from South Carolina had observed that the -Treaty was put into operation by the Proclamation of the PRESIDENT, and -made a part of the laws of the land. An honorable gentleman from -Virginia (Mr. GILES) granted that, when completed, the Treaty ought to -be annexed to the laws. Mr. W. asked, was this not done? It had been -promulgated in the way in which Treaties are directed to be promulgated; -and he would ask, if a case were to come before the Judges upon it, -whether they would not be bound to consider it as the law of the land? -If the member from Virginia (Mr. GILES) had been opposed to the Treaty -going into operation, why did he not take the proper mode to prevent it? -He knew of the resolution which directed how Treaties are to be -promulgated and annexed to our code of laws, he knew the Treaty had -arrived, and he might have had the subject discussed. If a majority were -for preventing the Treaty from being promulgated in the ordinary way, -then the resolution might have been done away, and some other mode -adopted which was thought most prudent. - -The same gentleman next contended that law can annul Treaties. But he -believed that the constitution decided that there was no other way of -repealing Treaties but by mutual agreement of the parties, or by war. To -break one article of a Treaty was to break the whole, and war, or a new -Treaty must be the consequence. The reason he gave why laws could repeal -Treaties, was, because laws were the will of the people. Treaties, Mr. -W. said, were as much the will of the people as laws. The people had -fixed barriers to the different branches of the constitution, which -could not be overleaped without endangering the whole fabric. - -In speaking of power, gentlemen say it is more likely to be abused in -the Executive than in that House. But, in the year 1789, when amendments -were first proposed to the States, a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. -MADISON) asserted "that it was less necessary to guard against abuse in -the Executive Department than any other, because it was not the stronger -branch of the system, but the weaker; it therefore must be levelled -against the Legislative, for it is the most powerful, and the most -likely to be abused, because it is under the least control;" and Mr. W. -quoted several laws which had originated in that House, by which very -large sums of money had been expended to little purpose, which he would -explain when they were in a Committee of the Whole on the report from -the Committee of Ways and Means. - -But gentlemen say, "Have we not as much power as the House of Commons in -Great Britain?" He answered, their powers were limited; the constitution -was their guide. He thought gentlemen proceeded as if they were about to -form a constitution rather than discuss a constitutional question. Some -gentlemen had said, Treaties of Amity ought to be vested in the -PRESIDENT and Senate; others, that Treaties for a cessation of arms -ought to be vested in the Executive; thus they wander, well knowing the -ground they had taken was not tenable. It brought to his mind an -observation made by an Indian Chief, in a Treaty at Albany, since the -late war, who, after thanking the Great Spirit for directing them back -in the good old path, which made them happy, lamented, that ever since -they had wandered from that path, they had been miserable. So it would -be with them if they left the constitution; they would wander from the -right path, and involve themselves in difficulties. Appropriations for -the army and navy in Great Britain must be made annually, without which -they must be discharged. By our constitution we may appropriate for two -years for the army, and no mention as to what time for the navy; so that -we can make appropriations for a longer time for our army and navy than -in Great Britain. - -The gentleman (Mr. GILES) further observed, that the opinions -entertained in that House three years ago, were not to influence them -now; it was necessary however, in Mr. W.'s opinion, that whenever -nations changed their customs, some notice ought to be given of the -change, that it might be known by nations with whom they may have any -transactions. To prove this, he quoted _Marten's_ Law of Nations. The -Treaty had been laid before them, that they might appropriate money for -carrying it into effect. On the first of June, the British were to give -up the Western posts; if money was not appropriated, would they not be -deceived? - -Before he proceeded to remark on what had fallen from his colleague (Mr. -LIVINGSTON) he would mention, that they had, for some years, in general -concurred in their political opinions, and during the present session -they had varied very little; in the question before the House, however, -they should differ very considerably. Soon after the constitution was -framed, a Convention was held in the State of New York, in which he had -the honor to be a member. He was fully of opinion at that time, as he -was now, that the Treaty power was a dangerous power, and, in -consequence, gave his dissent to it. - -He would proceed to remark on what had fallen from his colleague. He had -said, how could they determine whether the Treaty was constitutional or -not, or whether an impeachment was necessary, without information? The -papers, as he had said before, were open for ten weeks, during which -time gentlemen might have had access to them. But that gentleman said, -they had denied him of late, and so they had been to him; but he -understood they were at the Secretary of State's office, and might be -seen there. He mentioned a case of a Treaty with a foreign country, in -which their Minister might have received presents; but declared, that he -did not believe there was any corruption in the negotiation of the -Treaty in question. It appeared to him, therefore, inconsistent still to -talk of impeachment. - -Suppose, for instance, his colleague was Attorney General of the State -of New York, and a man were to charge another with being guilty of -burglary, whose character, reputation, and standing in life were -irreproachable, would he subpoena him to meet the charge? No, he would -not. And still the case is exactly similar to the present. - -If, said Mr. W., his colleague or any member of the House wanted the -papers, they had only to rise in their place and declare there were -grounds of suspicion for an impeachment; would any member refuse the -call? But he presumed no such thing was thought of. Why, then, expend so -much precious time unnecessarily? The gentleman believed that the -Minister had deviated from the instructions originally given him; but -that he received new instructions. Whatever instructions were given to -him, it appears, by the Treaty being ratified, that he executed them to -the satisfaction of his employer. - -It may be, said Mr. W., that this House may determine that it has a -check on the Treaty-making power; but the next Congress may say there is -no such thing. Whether there is, or there is not this check, it is -necessary for the stability of the Government to have it determined; and -he would join in sentiment with the gentleman from Maryland in a wish -that it might be settled. But he would have the amendment -constitutionally made; for, if we ourselves do not understand the -constitution, it is not likely that our constituents at large should -understand it. If I am wrong now in the true meaning of the -constitution, I have been wrong since its adoption. The people are the -sovereign; their will shall be my guide, from which I will not, -knowingly, depart. I live in the midst of a body of plain but -intelligent freemen, whose employment is the cultivation of the earth, -and who prize nothing beyond the freedom they enjoy. They are jealous of -their liberties, but they are obedient to, and willing to respect and -support the laws of the land. How will they know the laws, if we do not -understand the constitution after it has been in operation for nearly -eight years? - -Gentlemen observed, that if the Treaty-making power was meant to be -vested solely in the PRESIDENT and Senate, it would have been said so -explicitly; but, he thought, if the constitution had intended that House -to have interfered in Treaties, that would have been expressed, as a few -words would have done it. - -His colleague asserted, that that House had the power of carrying into -effect or not any Treaty; but he thought the House obliged to carry into -effect all Treaties constitutionally and completely made. To support his -doctrine, Mr. LIVINGSTON had referred to the practice of Great Britain, -and singled out the Treaty of Utrecht. - -In England, said Mr. W., the Treaty-making power is in the King. A -Treaty, when made by him, pledges the public faith and binds the nation; -but the Courts of Law and the officers of the revenue do not consider -Treaties as the supreme law (when they change the regulations of -commerce or interfere with previous acts of Parliament) until Parliament -has passed acts conformably to such stipulations of a Treaty. The -propriety, and, indeed, necessity of this rule, results from the -monarchical form of that Government, the power of the King alone to -repeal existing laws being a just ground of apprehension. From a like -apprehension, a Treaty, though negotiated and made in all its parts by -the PRESIDENT, must be submitted to the Senate for their ratification. -The Senate is a popular assembly, and representing the States. The -concurrence of two-thirds is equal on every principle of combining the -public will with the acts of the constituted authorities to the sanction -of Parliament. - -In England, Treaties of Peace, of Alliance, and, perhaps, many others, -are perfect and binding without co-operation of Parliament. The opinion -of some is understood to be, and _Blackstone_ seems to be of the number, -that every Treaty, when made by the King, is obligatory without the -concurrence of Parliament. The practice, however, is to lay Treaties -before Parliament when laws are necessary to carry them into effect, and -for Parliament to pass such laws. And, although a very broad discretion -has been claimed in Parliament to pass or reject such laws, the uniform -practice, except in one instance, has been to pass them. The faith of -the nation is considered as pledged. The case where laws to carry the -Treaty into effect have been refused, is the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1714. -The credit of the example is much abated by the circumstances of the -times when it happened. The Duke of Marlborough had been displaced, but -his friends were powerful; a Tory Minister was in power and much hated; -Queen Anne was decaying, and died that year, and the succession to the -Crown was doubtful. Parties were ready to draw the sword against each -other, and the most distinguished Ministers were soon proscribed and -fled the country. A civil war broke out in 1715, the next year. One only -example in such times, and the forerunner and cause of such events, -weighs little against the course of practice in numberless cases, all -issuing another way. It proves that the practice of Parliament -corresponds with our doctrine. If, however, their maxims are different, -so is their constitution in this particular. The act of the King should -be compared with the act of the PRESIDENT alone; and the ratification of -the Senate should be, and, by our constitution, it must be, considered -equal to the sanction of Parliament. The doctrine ascribed by Mr. -GALLATIN to the Parliament affords a reason for their calling for -papers; because, he says, they are to act upon them. Yet such call is -seldom made, and would probably be refused, if made without manifest -occasion for the papers. Our constitution has settled a different -doctrine; and, as the papers cannot be needed, they cannot properly be -asked for. - -He doubted not that the Treaty lately concluded with Great Britain had -ere now been laid before Parliament, and a sum of money granted for -recompensing spoliations committed in this country. Should they then -attempt to refuse appropriations for carrying the Treaty into effect, on -their part, where would be their national honor, their national faith? -Suppose the Treaty were a bad bargain, that would not authorize them to -break it. No: if a bad bargain be made to-day, make a better to-morrow. -Neither should they determine the thing before it came before them. -Probably they may not find it so bad as it had been represented; for -though it might, in some respects, narrow our commercial intercourse, -yet, perhaps, by so doing, the agricultural interest would be -proportionally benefited. He was convinced that the agricultural -interest was the true interest of this country. If by the Treaty we find -that it tends to the welfare of the farmer, we may conclude our -negotiator had the true interest of his country in view; and it was his -(Mr. W.'s) opinion that a man taken from the plough and put on board a -vessel was a man lost to the true interest of this country. This country -is not like that of Great Britain: they are confined to small islands; -we have a country extensive and fertile, and it is our duty to encourage -settlers, increase our numbers, and, by so doing, we shall soon be in a -situation to bid defiance to all the world. He was willing to encourage -commerce to its full proportion, but not so as to injure the -agricultural interest. The third article in the Treaty had been quoted -by a gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) as having a tendency to -operate unequally in our impost duties; Mr. W. observed he did not think -that was very exceptionable, so far as it had been explained. He did not -think the third clause of the Treaty a bad one: it only went to this, -that when Great Britain carried goods through our country they were to -pay the same duty as American citizens. And would not this be a greater -advantage to the United States than if they went up the rivers St. -Lawrence or Mississippi, and paid no duty? All the duty received of them -would be so much gain to the country. - -His colleague (Mr. LIVINGSTON) went on too contemporaneous a -construction, and said that the House were better able to judge of the -meaning of the constitution than the conventions which were held to -consider upon its adoption. He did not think so. He said, he had always -been called an anti-Federalist, and was so considered to this day. He -would willingly join to obtain an amendment to the constitution with -respect to the Treaty power; but, because he did not believe the -constitution contemplated an interference in that House in respect to -Treaties, he could not agree to the proposed doctrine. - -Mr. W. said, it was not necessary for him to go into the argument which -induced the convention to fix the Treaty-making power: it need only be -mentioned that they knew how and where that power was exercised in Great -Britain; and, in order to avert the difficulties which had arisen there, -the convention vested the power with the PRESIDENT and Senate; and, to -guard against undue influence, directed that two-thirds of the Senators -present should concur with the PRESIDENT. The convention had many -difficulties to surmount in this article; they had to do away the equal -power the small States shared, under the Confederation, with the large -States. But, to do away the discordant interests of the different States -and to give the small States satisfaction, agreed that all the States -should be equally represented in the Senate. In the Treaty-making power -each State hath an equal voice. To extend it further, for another check, -without the consent of the smaller States, would be doing away, in part, -that power which the small States had retained. - -He read the observations of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of -the State of New York, when debating on the merits of the constitution -in the convention held in that State, to prove that Treaties were -considered to be paramount to any law. Among the several passages from -the debates of the Convention of New York, Mr. W. read the following -proposed amendment of Mr. Lansing, who was a member of the convention -that formed the constitution of the United States, whose abilities and -candor were not doubted by any who knew him: - - "_Resolved_, As the opinion of this committee, that no - Treaty ought to operate so as to alter the constitution of - any State; nor ought any commercial Treaty to operate so as - to abrogate any law of the United States." - -He believed that the amendments proposed in the Virginia Convention -arose from their considering that there was no check in that House: the -contrary supposition, he said, would be like rowing a boat one way and -looking another. - -His colleagues read extracts from the journals to prove that the -PRESIDENT had laid before that House instructions which he had given his -Ministers employed on the Treaty business. He believed, when much money -was likely to be wanted, it was prudent and right to do so. It was as if -he asked that House whether it would agree to a proposed negotiation or -declare war--as if he had said, "I cannot unlock your Treasury; which -way would you have me act?" It was inconsistent to say that he had -diminished his power by asking advice. Books, he said, might be produced -without number; but nothing could be brought to justify the breaking of -a contract constitutionally made. It has become the law of the land. The -House has, indeed, the physical power to refuse to appropriate to carry -such a Treaty into effect; but the constitution meant that what was done -by one branch of the Legislature should be confirmed by the others, -except the act was unconstitutional. If a Treaty was constitutional, -they were therefore impliedly bound to carry it into effect. - -His colleague denied that any danger lay in the popular part of the -Government; he thought differently. To say there was more danger to be -apprehended from the Executive than the Legislative branch of Government -was unsound doctrine. He should enlarge on this subject when the Treaty -came before the House, and he trusted he should clearly show that the -greatest danger of abuse lay in that House. Have there not bills -originated in this House which have caused the expenditure of much money -to very little purpose? Is there not more responsibility in one man than -in large bodies? and was not the member from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) of -this opinion, as I have before stated? - -Where have (said Mr. W.) the acts originated that have cost so much -money to be expended, by reason of which the report of the Committee of -Ways and Means states the necessity of borrowing such large sums to meet -the necessary demands--the laying additional taxes and duties? Did -these acts originate with the Executive? No. Where then? In this House. -All money-bills must originate in this House, being so directed by the -constitution. - -Though his colleague represented Great Britain as being in chains, yet -he was drawing precedents from their Government. At first, he thought he -had fallen in love with the Government, but he afterwards found his -mistake. In that Government, said Mr. W., one precedent creates another, -and they soon accumulate and form laws; but his friend was drawing -precedents from that nation to support the checks, which, Mr. GILES -said, had been for six years completely routed from the Government of -the United States. He feared, if the gentlemen were permitted to take -their course, we should soon have a curious sort of constitution. - -But, to conclude, the ruin or prosperity of the nation depended much on -the present Government. He said, if the people flourish and are happy; -if they are industrious and at peace, they will not complain of their -Government. If this be the case, it will scarcely be admitted that the -checks in the Government have been completely routed for these six -years; if they were, however, he thought the nation could not be better -than happy. - -Mr. MILLEDGE observed, that as the hour of adjournment was drawing near, -he would not detain the committee long. The length of the debates, on -both sides of the question, had left him little room for observation; -but as a constitutional question had been involved in the resolution -before the committee, and as all constitutional questions were important -in their nature, he could not think of giving a silent vote. He -perfectly agreed with the gentleman who had spoken last, from the State -of Connecticut, that we ought not to put our foot from off the -constitution, and on that, he said, he would stand. Nor did he think it -necessary to resort to this or that Government to know their usages, or -to know what was said in this or that State, or what was written by this -or that man--but, according to the common and most obvious meaning of -words contained in the constitution, to draw our conclusion. That part -of the constitution which had been often mentioned, he begged that he -might be permitted to read--that all Treaties made by the authority of -the United States should be the supreme law of the land. He asked, what -was the authority of the United States? Powers derived from the -constitution. What are these powers? Legislative, Executive, and -Judicial. The better to understand these, let us see, said he, in what -order they present themselves to us. In the constitution we find that in -the very first section all Legislative powers herein granted shall be -vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a -Senate and House of Representatives. This, then, is the Legislative -power, the statute making power, the ordaining power, the enacting -power, or any other name by which it may be called. Now, then, said he, -let us see the extent of this power. In the 8th section, Congress shall -have power to make _all_ laws. It would be necessary, he said, to attend -to the monosyllable _all_. If the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate -have a right to make a law, do Congress make all laws? Certainly not. - -The constitution being his guide, he felt supported by a just confidence -in his opinion; but he would not say but he might be mistaken, and was -unwilling to commit himself. It was his opinion, then, that Treaties -ought to be bottomed on a law before they can have any binding -influence. To elucidate this, he said, it would be necessary to read the -whole of the clause: Congress shall have power to make all laws which -shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing -powers, (which are, he said, seventeen in number, particularly -expressed,) and _all_ other powers vested by this constitution in the -Government of the United States, or in any _department_ or officer -thereof. Here, again, he observed, we find the monosyllable _all_. What -does it import? Every one--the whole. Of what? Of all other powers -vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States, or -in any _department_ or officer thereof. What is the PRESIDENT and -two-thirds of the Senate? The Treaty-making _department_. Therefore, -being a _department_, whatever powers are vested in them by the -constitution cannot be carried into execution but by a law, otherwise -the clause in the constitution means nothing. What is a law? The will of -the people made known. Where is that will to be found? In the Senate and -House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled. Are -the PRESIDENT and two-thirds of the Senate Congress? No; therefore they -cannot make a law. - -The gentleman from New Hampshire asked, what do the PRESIDENT and -two-thirds of the Senate operate upon? I answer, with him, on Treaties; -but in their nature they are only a department, and whatever a -department does cannot, he repeated, be carried into execution but by a -law. The Treaty-making power is an intermediate department, and no -instrument they can make can operate the repeal of a law, the same force -being required for a repeal as to enact. The gentleman from Rhode Island -observed, that if the House of Representatives was to have a control -over Treaties, small States might be injured in their commerce, because -the representation on that floor was unequal. Mr. M. observed, that -though his State was not a small State, yet it was small in -representation, but he apprehended no danger. Under the Articles of -Confederation, it was a Government of States; under the present -Government, it was a Government of departments, of checks. He said, the -local interest of one State was so blended with another that the -security of the one became the security of the whole, founded on a -proportion of sovereignty surrendered by each to the whole, and each -drawing from the whole its proportion of security. Let us then, said -he, examine the compact made by each with the whole on the score of -commerce. Here he read part of the 9th section: No tax or duty shall be -laid on articles exported from any State; no preference shall be given -by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over -those of another. He said, the negotiators of the Treaty, in the 12th -article, had laid a prohibition on the exportation of cotton to any part -of the world, except in British vessels--cotton, the growth of our own -soil, an important staple in the two Southern States, particularly in -the one he had the honor to represent. But it is said, and so we find -it, that this article is suspended, and open to further negotiation. He -called on the committee for any member to deny that the principle did -not still exist. He said, then, if a principle still exists in that -Treaty which militates with a fundamental principle, a principle in the -constitution, he left to the committee, which ought to yield. Were this -principle to prevail, it would destroy a vital part of the constitution, -and injure the agriculture of the States. He called on that gentleman to -beware of admitting such a principle; for, if once allowed, it would -extend not only to the cotton of Georgia, but to the flaxseed of Rhode -Island, the flour of Pennsylvania, and the tobacco of Virginia. - -Mr. M. concluded by observing, that, from all he had said, it was to be -understood that the powers of legislation were only with Congress, and -that the House of Representatives could not, on the subject before them, -legislate without information. Before he sat down, he could not help -observing that it was somewhat strange that the first Treaty negotiated -under the present Government with a European nation, should produce such -a contrariety of sentiment on the meaning of the constitution, and that -he was reminded by this circumstance of the pertinent words of a -celebrated writer: - -"The works of human invention are progressive, and are not completed but -by degrees. At the last improvement we are apt to sit down satisfied, -and vainly imagine that we have accomplished the end we have proposed, -but time soon unravels the fine-spun system, and we find ourselves -obliged to interweave fresh materials to repair the disordered texture." - -Mr. KITCHELL observed, that he could not think of giving a silent vote -on so important a question as this had become; but he should not go into -an argumentative discussion on the subject, nor should he inquire into -the opinions held in different conventions at the adoption of the -constitution, or refer to Great Britain for precedents. He would look at -the constitution alone, and see what were the powers given to the -different branches of Government. When it says that such and such powers -are vested in Congress, and such in the Executive, he would abide by -that decision. Where that instrument says Congress shall lay and collect -taxes, regulate commerce with foreign nations, establish a uniform rule -of naturalization, provide for the common defence, &c., and that the -Executive shall have power, by and with the consent of two-thirds of the -Senate, to make Treaties, appoint Ambassadors, &c., the directions of -the constitution must be abided by. - -He would inquire what Treaties could be entered into by the PRESIDENT -and Senate, without infringing upon the powers placed in Congress? He -believed Treaties of Peace, of Amity, and Friendship, could be made by -them. If this could be done, he said, those were the powers meant to be -vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate, and not that Treaties should embrace -objects which are expressly appointed to the management of Congress. In -this view, the PRESIDENT and Senate would not have the power to -influence that House in their proceedings; but commercial or other -Treaties which embraced objects the regulation of which was placed in -Congress, must be laid before them for the purpose of their passing or -refusing to pass laws to carry them into effect, in the same way as -Treaties with the Indians had been laid before them. - -He did not think the question of itself before the House important, as -it related to the production of papers, but only as it involved in it an -important principle, viz: that when Treaties were made by the PRESIDENT -and Senate, and presented to that House, they had nothing to do but -appropriate money to carry them into effect. It was true gentlemen had -seemed willing to allow them what they called discretion; but it was -such a sort of discretion as a criminal might be said to have, who was -told he might choose this or that posture of suffering, but that he must -die. - -It had been said that the PRESIDENT and Senate were equally the -Representatives of the people with that House. He would inquire how they -became so? The constitution has appointed that Representatives shall be -chosen by the people in proportion to their population. Were the Senate -so chosen? No. The people have no vote at all in choosing them. Are they -amenable to the people for their conduct? No. Therefore, in no shape can -they be called the Representatives of the people. The Senate, he said, -represented the several State Legislatures, and that House the people at -large. He was sure, therefore, that every thing in which the interests -of the people at large were concerned should be submitted to their -consideration, before it was carried into effect. - -A great deal, he observed, had been said upon this subject, some things -well said, and a good deal that might have been as well unsaid, for any -good effect it was likely to produce. He was sorry to hear what had -fallen from a gentleman from Rhode Island with respect to the interests -of small States. He said he was himself a Representative of a small -State, and he believed his constituents were well satisfied with the -present distribution of power, and did not wish that of the PRESIDENT or -Senate to be increased. - -He did not think what fell from his colleague, when he said gentlemen -wished to amuse the people with the cry of liberty, liberty, and spoke -of the groans of three or four hundred thousand slaves assailing his -ears, was meant as a reflection upon any gentleman in that House who -might hold slaves; but an earnest wish that the people at large might -never bend their necks to slavery. - -He did not think the subject of the Treaty at all before the House. He -should give his vote for the papers; not so much on account of their -being of great importance in themselves, but in order to repel the -doctrine, that they had no right to discuss the merits of any Treaty -whatever. - -MARCH 22.--In Committee of the Whole on Mr. LIVINGSTON's resolution: - -Mr. COIT said, the attention of the committee was doubtless fatigued -with the subject before it; to those gentlemen who had already delivered -their sentiments upon the occasion, he need not make any apology; and to -those who had not done so, he would assure them that he would not occupy -much of their time. - -Most of the gentlemen who had gone before him, he observed, had -regretted that the debate had taken the turn it had, but he was happy it -had taken such a turn. It appeared to him, that the motion was intended -as a stepping-stone to a violation of the rights of the other branches -of the Government by that House. It became him when he made a -declaration of this kind to say, that he did not impute other than pure -motives to any member of that House. He believed the general wish was to -discover the true sense of the constitution; yet it was not -extraordinary if in doing this men were actuated by the sentiments which -they had long been in the habit of considering as well-founded, to lean -to that construction which most favored their favorite opinions. He had -no idea that any gentleman meant to make inroads on the constitution; -but it was his opinion that if the doctrines now insisted upon -prevailed, they would have that effect. - -He was happy, for two reasons, that the true ground of the present -motion was made to appear. Because, if the resolution had passed without -discussion, the motives which led to it would not have been seen; and -because he wished the question of what were the powers of that House, -with respect to Treaty-making, to be discussed, independent of the -Treaty, which was likely soon to come before them. They stood now on the -pure ground of an abstract constitutional question. - -Some obscurity, Mr. C. thought, had arisen from not distinguishing the -application of arguments to the different principles on which the -resolution had been advocated, which he should endeavor to avoid. He -considered the Treaty-making power as absolutely vested in the PRESIDENT -and Senate; still, that when Legislative acts were necessary to carry a -Treaty into effect, the Legislature were not without discretion in the -passing of them; if the Legislature had a hand in making Treaties, there -could be no question of the propriety of calling for papers; he should -then, in the first place, examine the propriety of calling for papers, -taking for granted that the Legislature had no hand in making Treaties. - -If they were to consider the power by which a Treaty was made, there -would be found two nations concerned, whose consent would be also -necessary to repeal it. But were there no other ways of cancelling a -Treaty? There were certainly ways of breaking a Treaty. There were -circumstances in which the breaking of a Treaty would be justifiable. -For instance, if, before a Treaty was carried into effect, there was -such a change of circumstances as to make it necessary to declare war; -could they not discuss the subject, whether it were more advisable to -carry into effect the Treaty, and keep at peace, or break it and declare -war? If a question of this kind came up, there could be no impropriety -in looking into it; not with an idea of having any concern in making the -Treaty, but because such alterations had taken place in the state of -affairs, as to make it necessary to discuss the propriety of going to -war. - -There was another point of view in which that House had a check on -Treaties. Granting that a Treaty is completely made, the subject of -appropriation must come before them. Gentlemen had been understood to -say, that no discretion could be exercised in appropriating the -necessary money for carrying a Treaty into effect. But he was of a -different opinion; he believed, that though they had nothing to do with -the making of Treaties, yet when they were called upon to appropriate, -they must exercise their discretion. It was true, that in general when -Treaties were made, it would be the duty of that House to carry them -into effect, in the same way as they found it their duty to carry into -effect existing laws; but he said, there were justifiable grounds of -refusing to appropriate money to carry into effect both laws and -Treaties. - -Mr. C. referred to the case of appropriations for the army. Suppose, -said he, an army was raised for four years; at the end of two years a -fresh appropriation is requisite to support it; but the Legislature has -a discretion in doing this, or where was the use of the constitutional -regulation of confining appropriations to two years? He considered, that -there was some analogy between such cases of appropriation, and those -requisite for Treaties. When a Treaty is made, the nation is bound by -it, and its organ has an obligation upon it to carry it into effect. It -might, in general, be said that there was an absolute obligation; but -still there were particular cases in which that obligation did not hold. -It appeared to him that a Treaty might possibly be of so ruinous a -nature, as to justify the refusing to carry it into effect. Nay, he -would say, that if half the lies and calumnies which had been spread -throughout the - -Union with respect to the late Treaty with Great Britain were true; if -the negotiator had been bribed; if he had given up the rights of his -country; if their liberty and independence had been sacrificed; if the -PRESIDENT and Senate had been bribed by British gold; if he had any idea -of that kind, he would not agree to carry the Treaty into effect; nor -should he conceive the national faith bound by such an instrument; no -matter what grounds were taken to justify the refusal, whether -constitutional or revolutionary. - -If these principles were just, he said, it would be allowed that that -House had a discretionary power with respect to appropriating to carry a -Treaty into effect, though it had nothing to do with making it. No -cause, he said, had been shown for calling for papers. Why, then, call -for them? Gentlemen talked about impeachment? They might impeach without -papers. But did they want to bring forward an impeachment? No such -thing; it was only to cover the real drift of the motion that this was -mentioned. - -Did any gentleman think there was sufficient evil in the late Treaty -with Great Britain to authorize them in refusing to carry it into -effect? It appeared to him, that that House had a right to call for any -papers which might throw light on their deliberations. But they must -also consider, that there was a discretion to be used by the Executive -in giving up papers in his hands. When there are papers in his hands -which that House had real occasion for, it was important that they -should be brought forward; but, he said, as long as a proper confidence -subsisted between the two branches of the Government, if that House -asked for papers which the PRESIDENT thought it improper to send them, -he would decline doing it. But it is not contended, that the papers -which are the object of the present resolution will be of any real use -to the House. The gentleman who brought forward the motion had read them -through, and the most that he said on the subject was, that the -negotiator had not complied with some of the first instructions which -were given to him. Another ground of calling for the papers, which was -to him a pleasing ground, was that of publicity; for he fully agreed -with the gentleman from Georgia, that the more public Governmental -proceedings could with propriety be made, the better; but that House had -not the right to direct the PRESIDENT on that head; they ought rather to -leave it to him to publish the papers, or not, as he pleased; for, if -they considered the PRESIDENT as attentive at all times to the duties of -his office, it would be arrogancy in that House to attempt to influence -him in that particular. - -But the main point in dispute was the force and effect of the -Treaty-making power. What were the powers and privileges of the House on -the subject? In pursuing this inquiry, he was pleased with the remark of -the gentleman from Georgia, that in examining into the meaning of the -words and phrases, they must take the meaning that was generally given -to them, and if they could find out the true import of the phrase _make_ -Treaties, it would remove all doubts on the subject. He hoped, for this -purpose, that gentleman would have examined the proceedings of his own -country; but, instead of doing this, they find him referring to the -practices of Great Britain. - -The PRESIDENT and Senate, Mr. C. observed, were expressly authorized to -make Treaties. To what should they compare Treaties? Might they not say -that they were betwixt nations what bargains were betwixt individuals? -And, after he had employed an agent to make a contract, with full -discretion, and he had in pursuance of his authority made it, was it not -binding? Though in public as well as in private contracts he -acknowledged there might be circumstances which would justify a -non-compliance with the terms of the bargain; yet, in case all the -circumstances had been fair, the contract must be complied with. - -It appeared to him not unimportant to consider whether, when Treaties -were made, they were not the laws of the land. A power to make, carried -in his mind a power to complete. But if this were doubtful, where should -they look for information? He expected the gentleman from -Georgia--knowing him to be well acquainted with the proceedings of -Government for a long time--would have referred them to the old -Confederation. It would certainly have been more natural to have -referred them to the old Congress than to the Parliament of Great -Britain. If they looked into the powers of the old Congress they would -find that they had the power to enter into Treaties and alliances, which -he apprehended to be the same power as that placed in the PRESIDENT and -Senate in the present Government; and it was natural to conclude that a -Treaty made by the present power was equally binding with those made -under the old government; for it will be recollected that the general -power was delegated to the General Government; and if they had the same -powers, he could not see that there should be any difference in the -exercise of them. If it had been intended otherwise, the convention at -the forming of the constitution, would have added a proviso that no -Treaty should be made by the PRESIDENT and Senate which included -commercial regulations. - -It appeared to him that a subject of such recent date as their -constitution could not receive much elucidation from the opinions held -concerning it in the conventions, at or about the time of passing it. He -confessed he found little aid to assist his mind to form a judgment on -the matter from any other source than the constitution itself; indeed he -thought the light was there so clear that nothing more was wanted. There -were four members, he said, in that House who were members of the -convention who formed the constitution. The sentiments of two of those -gentlemen he was not acquainted with; but two of them had spoken on -this subject. If those gentlemen had come forward and declared that such -a power as the Treaty power was contended to be was not intended to be -placed in the hands of the PRESIDENT and Senate, but that that House was -meant to have certain powers with respect to Treaties, he would not say -but that such a declaration would have shook his faith on the subject; -for, though he should still have been guided by the instrument itself, -yet authority so respectable would have its weight on his mind. But what -did the gentlemen who have delivered their sentiments say? The gentleman -from Georgia (Mr. BALDWIN) mentioned the necessity of inquiring into the -true meaning of the phrase, "make Treaties;" and, instead of telling -them what had been the practice in the old government, he went over the -water to Great Britain. What did they get from the gentleman from -Virginia, (Mr. MADISON?) He produced five sets of doubts and one problem -upon the construction of the constitution. This had the same effect on -his mind as if they had declared that the meaning of the constitution -was well understood, in the convention which formed it, to vest the -Treaty-making power completely in the PRESIDENT and Senate. It was -certainly matter of great importance where the different powers of -Government were placed, and caused considerable debates in the -convention. Some thought the Treaty-making power should be placed in the -Legislature, but that was greatly objected to; it was urged by others -that the powers should be in the PRESIDENT and a majority of the Senate; -it was again proposed that two-thirds of the whole number of the -Senators should consent to a Treaty--but finally passed as it is found -in the constitution. He was far from accusing those gentlemen with -impropriety of conduct on the occasion. If they think it would be better -for the interests of the people that that House should have a share in -the making of certain Treaties, and believe the constitution will bear -that construction, it was not for him to impeach the purity of their -motives or propriety of their conduct; but it would require strong -arguments to convince his mind that the constitution placed any such -power in that House, contrary to the unanimous understanding of the -members of the convention who formed it. - -The arguments which had been urged for placing certain powers in that -House with respect to Treaties were drawn from the practice of Great -Britain, and from the danger of the Treaty power being vested wholly in -the PRESIDENT and Senate. He did not think that the Government of Great -Britain had been introduced for any other purpose than illustration, -though other use had been made of it out of doors. With respect to the -principles of that government, let them inquire into its sovereign -power; for it was a just position that Treaties must be made by the -sovereign power of a nation. Where should they find that power in Great -Britain? The King and Parliament were allowed to be omnipotent. -Parliament have altered the continuation of their existence from three -to seven years. Where must they look in the United States for the -sovereign power? They must go to the people at large; for in them it lay -alone. Their constitution limited the powers of every branch of -government, and it was therefore improper to apply foreign ideas to -their constitution. But if a Treaty was made by the agents of a -sovereign power, authorized for the purpose, the end was answered: in -the United States, the sovereign power can act only by its agents. - -The Legislature of Great Britain, he said, it was true, consisted of -three branches, and that was almost the only feature in that Government -resembling that of the United States. In Great Britain, their Executive -is an hereditary Monarch, whereas the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is -elected every four years. Their House of Lords consisted of bishops and -an hereditary nobility--the bishops appointed by the Crown, and the -nobility were increased at the King's pleasure; whilst the Senate of the -United States is elected every six years. Gentlemen say the Senators are -not elected by the people, but they are chosen by the Legislatures of -the different States, who are elected by the people. The House of -Commons in Britain, which is the only representation of the people their -Government contains, is elected by a very small part of the people; and -the Crown has such an influence in it as to be able to carry most -questions at its pleasure. How could it then bear a comparison with that -House, who were chosen by the whole people every two years? The -absurdity might be admitted, in that Government, that the King had the -power to make Treaties, and that the sanction of the Legislature was -still necessary to give them legal validity, because the influence of -the Crown was so great in both Houses as to carry any measure it pleased -through them. But it would not do in this country. The comparison, -therefore, betwixt the two Governments fails, and no arguments can be -drawn from it. - -The other argument respecting the danger of the power being placed -solely in the Executive arose from the comparison with Great Britain. If -the powers of the PRESIDENT and Senate of this country could with any -tolerable degree of justice be compared to those of the King and House -of Lords in Great Britain, as little taste as he had for revolutions, he -would not say but he should be induced to join gentlemen, either by -fraud or force, to overturn the constitution. He looked on the -representation in the Senate to be as complete as in that House. -Gentlemen were very fond of calling that House the popular branch of -government. He agreed that a criticism on words was in general trifling. -That gentlemen from Virginia might assert this, he allowed, as they had -nineteen members out of the hundred and five in that House, and in the -Senate only a fifteenth part of the body; but gentlemen did not mean, -when they spoke on that subject, to have reference to particular -States, but to the whole. The Senators and Representatives were -regularly apportioned for the whole Union; and, though on different -principles, were as completely represented in the one House as in the -other. - -Mr. C. concluded with saying, that he had no doubt the powers vested by -the constitution were well vested; and if the constitution was fairly -considered, little doubt could remain on the subject. But if the House -passed the resolution now before the committee, he should not consider -the question as decided; but if the construction was still insisted -upon, he was happy the constitution was not wholly in their hands--that -there were joined with them in the guardianship of it, the PRESIDENT, -the Senate, and the people of the United States. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE said, it was with diffidence he rose to speak on a subject -which had been so copiously and ably handled by gentlemen who had -preceded him. It had been his intention to have given a silent vote on -the resolution on the table, but the turn which the debates had -taken--involving an important constitutional question, relative to the -powers vested in the different branches of Government--seemed to create -a necessity of expressing his sentiments, lest by his vote he might seem -to subscribe to certain doctrines in the latitude in which they had been -laid down. And as he should differ in some respects from most of the -gentlemen that had spoken, he asked the indulgence of the committee -whilst he made a few remarks on a subject which he conceived to be of -vast importance, as a wrong decision might give a direction to their -government which might be of serious consequence. - -On the one hand, he did not think that Treaties could not, under any -circumstances, be the subject of Legislative consideration or -discussion, and that they were not to look into them. It appeared to -him, that they not only had the right, but that it was their -indispensable duty to look into every Treaty, when called upon to aid in -its operation; to see whether it had the constitutional forms; whether -it related to objects within the province of the Treaty-making power, a -power which is not unlimited. The objects upon which it can operate are -understood and well defined, and if the Treaty-making power were to -embrace other objects, their doings would have no more binding force -than if the Legislature were to assume and exercise judicial powers -under the name of legislation. It might be proper, also, to examine the -merits of a Treaty, so far as to see whether it be of such a ruinous -nature as, according to the law of nations, it would be null, and -whether they would be justified in withholding Legislative provision to -carry it into effect. He also considered Treaties as subject to -Legislative control, so that their operation, so far as related to the -people of the United States, might be suspended or annulled whenever, in -the opinion of the Legislature, there was sufficient cause. And -further, that the clause in the constitution which provides that no -money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but "in consequence of -appropriations made by law," as vesting in the different branches of -Government a check adequate to every purpose of security. - -On the other hand, he did not consider the House of Representatives as -having a constitutional right to interfere in making Treaties, or that a -Treaty needed any concurrence of that House, or Legislative sanction, to -make it the law of the land. He had always supposed that Treaties were -exactly on the footing of laws in their operation on antecedent laws, -suspending and repealing such as were repugnant. Treaties may sometimes -require Legislative aid to carry them into effect; so may laws, and they -were constantly in the habit of making laws to carry into effect laws -heretofore made. - -After these preliminary observations, Mr. H. proceeded to inquire, not -what ought to be, but what was the Constitution of the United States? We -were not, he said, in Convention, but in the discharge of Legislative -functions under the constitution; and to understand the extent of the -powers intended to be granted in the second article, section two, by -these words, "the PRESIDENT shall have power, by and with the advice and -consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the -Senators present concur," we must advert to the general definition of -the Treaty-making power--what objects it may embrace, and how far it can -interfere with Legislative power. A Treaty is a compact entered into by -two independent nations, for mutual advantage or defence. Nothing can, -therefore, come within the Treaty-making power but what has a relation -to both nations, and in which they have a mutual interest. The object of -this power is to secure to our citizens advantages in foreign countries -which are without or beyond our Legislative jurisdiction, to enable the -Treaty-making power to obtain which, it must necessarily be authorized -to give some consideration or equivalent therefor. If the United States -authorize an agent to make a bargain or purchase, the power of binding -the United States for a reasonable consideration is necessarily given. -Whenever the Treaty-making power departs from these rules, it is without -its jurisdiction, and such a Treaty would be of no validity. Under this -view of the subject, if we look into our code of laws, we shall find few -of them that can be affected, to any great degree, by the Treaty-making -power. All laws regulating our own internal police, so far as the -citizens of the United States alone are concerned, are wholly beyond its -reach; no foreign nation having any interest or concern in that -business, every attempt to interfere would be a mere nullity, as much as -if two individuals were to enter into a contract to regulate the conduct -or actions of a third person, who was no party to such contract. He -could, he said, illustrate his idea more readily by adverting to a law, -mentioned as being affected by the present Treaty, which was the -revenue law; which provides that certain duties shall be paid on goods -imported into the United States, and on goods coming in foreign bottoms -ten per cent. advance on the amount of such duties. This is a law no -Treaty can repeal, admitting the repealing power in its fullest -latitude, because no foreign nation can have any interest or concern in -the duties payable by our own citizens into our own Treasury. All that a -Treaty could do, would be to suspend or arrest its operation, so far as -the citizens or subjects of the nations with whom we treated, were or -might be affected by it. The only operation which the British Treaty has -upon that law is, that in consideration of our being freely admitted to -the fur trade and the trade into Canada, which opens to the enterprise -of our citizens a vast source of wealth and advantage, we only give in -return to the subjects of the King of Great Britain the privilege of -bringing, by land or inland navigation, into the United States, goods -for which they pay no more duties than our citizens pay on goods -imported in American bottoms. British subjects have always been -permitted to reside and trade in the United States, and peltry is to be -duty free in the territories of each. According to this definition of -the Treaty-making power, and as far as he could judge, he said, it was -correct; it cannot have that unlimited extension which has been ascribed -to it. It cannot be that monster which has been described as about to -swallow up all the Legislative powers of Congress; nor can there be any -danger of the PRESIDENT and Senate having it in their power, by forming -Treaties with an Indian tribe or a foreign nation, to legislate over the -United States. The Treaty-making power cannot affect the Legislative -power of Congress but in a very small and limited degree. Because a -Treaty or an Executive act may, in some instances, arrest the operation -or progress of a law, it is no argument against the existence of the -power. In article first, section eighth, of the constitution, a specific -power is granted to Congress to provide for the punishment of the -counterfeiters of the securities or coins of the United States. In -another article, the PRESIDENT is authorized generally to grant -reprieves or pardons for offences against the United States, excepting -in cases of impeachment. Can any one seriously contend that the -PRESIDENT has not the power of granting a pardon to a counterfeiter of -securities or coins, because it would suspend and defeat the operation -of a law, on a subject, specially delegated to Congress? If this -doctrine be true, that all Legislative power may be exercised by the -Treaty-making power, Congress, under the old Confederation, had -unlimited Legislative power over the States. The old Confederation -vested in Congress an unlimited power to make Treaties, excepting only -that the States were to be at liberty to impose like duties on -foreigners as on their own people, and that the exportation or -importation of goods was not to be prohibited. Was it ever imagined -that, by this general power, Congress had a right, by forming a Treaty -with a foreign power, to legislate over the States to any extent? -Suppose Congress, instead of taking so much pains to persuade the States -to consent to their laying the five per cent. impost, and in obtaining -which they were finally defeated by the refusal of one State, after -every possible exertion, had undertaken to have it done by Treaty? Would -not the measures have been reprobated with one voice, and the Treaty -considered as a nullity? - -In the first place, in Art. I., organizing a Legislative body, and -delegating to them, not all, but a part only of the Legislative power of -the States, in these words: "All Legislative powers herein granted shall -be vested in a Congress;" and among the specified powers, the right of -regulating commerce with foreign nations. How were they to regulate -commerce? Not by the exercise of the Treaty-making power. This article -of the constitution has not the least relation to that kind of power: it -was Legislative power only that was meant: it vested Congress with the -whole power, as far as the object could be accomplished by a Legislative -act; but this power would embrace but a small part of the objects which -come within the term of regulating commerce with foreign nations; it -could extend no further than the bounds of our own jurisdiction. There -is not a single expression that looks like authorizing them to act in -any other than their Legislative character. - -The constitution then proceeds, in the second Article, to the -establishment of an Executive power, to be vested in a PRESIDENT, and in -the second section, says: "The PRESIDENT shall have power, by and with -the advice and consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided -two-thirds of the Senators present concur." The most general terms are -used, and such as under the old Confederation had been understood to -embrace every kind of Treaty, commercial as well as others, and had been -exercised in the most ample and unlimited manner, and the Treaties thus -formed had been declared and adjudged to have the force and operation of -a law, and that they repealed all laws that were opposed to them; and -these Treaties were then in full force and operation, and were the -supreme law of the land. It cannot be presumed that the framers of our -constitution were ignorant of the laws of the land, or that they had not -well attended to and examined Treaties, which, by the constitution, they -were again about to declare to be the supreme law of the land under the -new Government. Now, if it really was intended that the Treaty-making -power should not be as broad, and have the same extension and operation -as had been exercised under the old Confederation, or that there was to -be a distinction between commercial Treaties and others, or that -Treaties generally should not so operate as to repeal pre-existing laws, -or that the concurrence of the House of Representatives, or sanction of -Congress, should, under any circumstances, be necessary to give -validity or force to a Treaty, how can we account for the total silence -of the constitution on this subject, and that there should not be a -single sentence in the whole instrument that even looks that way? If any -limitation was intended, the convention certainly knew that it was -necessary it should be inserted. When we examine the constitution, and -see with what accuracy and care it is drawn up, how wonderfully every -part of it is guarded, that there is not a single word but appears to -have been carefully examined, and when we call to mind the members of -that convention, and find them to have been the ablest and most accurate -men of our country, we cannot presume that we should have been left to -the sad alternative, for the purpose of explaining so important an -article of our constitution, which might have been so easily made -definite, to be obliged to resort to the British House of Commons for -precedents, and those too which were derived from the most turbulent -periods of the Government of that nation; when, it is a possible case, -that the change of a Ministry, or the rage of party, might have been -more immediately the object of pursuit than the true interest of the -nation; more especially as the practice of our own Government, and the -legal opinion of our own country, were directly opposed to such a -construction. But if all this might be supposed not to have had -sufficient weight to have induced the convention to have introduced such -a limitation, or some intimation that such limitation was intended, they -must have supposed it necessary when they handed out with the -constitution, which were declared by the ratification thereof to be the -supreme law of the land, Treaties of every description, commercial as -well as others. To me, the language of this transaction is, we have, by -one article of this constitution, granted the Treaty-making power, in -general terms, to the PRESIDENT and Senate. - - MARCH 24.--[The question was taken on Mr. LIVINGSTON's - resolution, which is in the following words:] - - "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be - requested to lay before this House a copy of the - instructions to the Minister of the United States, who - negotiated the Treaty with the King of Great Britain, - communicated by his Message of the first of March, together - with the correspondence and other documents relative to the - said Treaty; excepting such of said papers as any existing - negotiation may render improper to be disclosed." - -The division on this resolution, in Committee of the Whole, was--for the -resolution 61, against it 38--majority 23. - -The resolution was then taken up in the House, and the yeas and nays -being called upon it, were taken, and stood yeas 62, nays 37, as -follows: - - YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, David Bard, Abraham Baldwin, - Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, - Dempsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Thomas - Claiborne, John Clopton, Isaac Coles, Henry Dearborn, - George Dent, Gabriel Duvall, Samuel Earle, William Findlay, - Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, James - Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, Christopher Greenup, William B. - Grove, Wade Hampton, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, - John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, John Heath, James - Holland, George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell, Edward Livingston, - Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel - Macon, James Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, - Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nicholas, - Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, John Patton, - Francis Preston, John Richards, Robert Rutherford, John S. - Sherburne, Israel Smith, Samuel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, John - Swanwick, Absalom Tatom, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. - Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Richard Winn. - - NAYS.--Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Daniel Buck, - Joshua Coit, William Cooper, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, - Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, - Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger - Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, James - Hillhouse, William Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel - Lyman, Francis Malbone, William Vans Murray, John Reed, - Theodore Sedgwick, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, - Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith, William Smith, Zephaniah - Swift, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, - Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, John - Williams. - -RECAPITULATION.--Yeas 62, nays 37, absent 5--104--the Speaker 1--whole -number of Representatives 105.[72] - -Mr. DAYTON, the Speaker, in Committee of the Whole, voted against the -resolution. - -MARCH 25.--The committee, (Messrs. LIVINGSTON and GALLATIN,) appointed -to present the resolution agreed to yesterday to the PRESIDENT, -reported, that the PRESIDENT answered, that he would take the resolution -into consideration. - -MARCH 30.--The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT in -answer to the resolution of the House: - - _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_ - - With the utmost attention I have considered your resolution - of the 24th instant, requesting me to lay before your House - a copy of the instructions to the Minister of the United - States, who negotiated the Treaty with the King of Great - Britain, together with the correspondence and other - documents relative to that Treaty, excepting such of the - said papers as any existing negotiation may render improper - to be disclosed. - - In deliberating upon this subject, it was impossible for - me to lose sight of the principle which some have avowed in - its discussion, or to avoid extending my views to the - consequences which must flow from the admission of that - principle. - - I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a - disposition to withhold any information which the - constitution has enjoined upon the President, as a duty, to - give, or which could be required of him by either House of - Congress as a right; and, with truth, I affirm, that it has - been, as it will continue to be, while I have the honor to - preside in the Government, my constant endeavor to - harmonize with the other branches thereof, so far as the - trust delegated to me by the people of the United States, - and my sense of the obligation it imposes, to "preserve, - protect, and defend the constitution," will permit. - - The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution; and - their success must often depend on secrecy; and even, when - brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the - measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have - been proposed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic; - for this might have a pernicious influence on future - negotiations; or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps - danger and mischief, in relation to other Powers. The - necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason - for vesting the power of making Treaties in the President - with the advice and consent of the Senate; the principle on - which the body was formed confining it to a small number of - members. To admit, then, a right in the House of - Representatives to demand, and to have, as a matter of - course, all the papers respecting a negotiation with a - foreign Power, would be to establish a dangerous precedent. - - It does not occur that the inspection of the papers asked - for can be relative to any purpose under the cognizance of - the House of Representatives, except that of an - impeachment; which the resolution has not expressed. I - repeat, that I have no disposition to withhold any - information which the duty of my station will permit, or - the public good shall require; to be disclosed; and, in - fact, all the papers affecting the negotiation with Great - Britain were laid before the Senate, when the Treaty itself - was communicated for their consideration and advice. - - The course which the debate has taken on the resolution of - the House, leads to some observations on the mode of making - Treaties under the Constitution of the United States. - - Having been a member of the General Convention, and knowing - the principles on which the constitution was formed, I have - ever entertained but one opinion on this subject, and from - the first establishment of the Government to this moment, - my conduct has exemplified that opinion, that the power of - making Treaties is exclusively vested in the President, by - and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided - two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and that every - Treaty so made, and promulgated, thenceforward becomes the - law of the land. It is thus that the Treaty-making power - has been understood by foreign nations, and in all the - Treaties made with them, _we_ have declared, and _they_ - have believed, that when ratified by the President, with - the advice and consent of the Senate, they became - obligatory. In this construction of the constitution every - House of Representatives has heretofore acquiesced, and - until the present time not a doubt or suspicion has - appeared to my knowledge that this construction was not the - true one. Nay, they have more than acquiesced; for until - now, without controverting the obligation of such Treaties, - they have made all the requisite provisions for carrying - them into effect. - - There is also reason to believe that this construction - agrees with the opinions entertained by the State - Conventions, when they were deliberating on the - constitution, especially by those who objected to it, - because there was not required in Commercial Treaties the - consent of two-thirds of the whole number of the members of - the Senate, instead of two-thirds of the Senators present, - and because, in Treaties respecting territorial and certain - other rights and claims, the concurrence of three-fourths - of the whole number of the members of both Houses - respectively was not made necessary. - - It is a fact, declared by the General Convention, and - universally understood, that the Constitution of the United - States was the result of a spirit of amity and mutual - concession. And it is well known that, under this - influence, the smaller States were admitted to an equal - representation in the Senate, with the larger States; and - that this branch of the Government was invested with great - powers; for, on the equal participation of those powers, - the sovereignty and political safety of the smaller States - were deemed essentially to depend. - - If other proofs than these, and the plain letter of the - constitution itself, be necessary to ascertain the point - under consideration, they may be found in the Journals of - the General Convention, which I have deposited in the - office of the Department of State. In those Journals it - will appear, that a proposition was made, "that no Treaty - should be binding on the United States which was not - ratified by a law," and that the proposition was explicitly - rejected. - - As, therefore, it is perfectly clear to my understanding, - that the assent of the House of Representatives is not - necessary to the validity of a Treaty; as the Treaty with - Great Britain exhibits in itself all the objects requiring - Legislative provision, and on these the papers called for - can throw no light; and as it is essential to the due - administration of the Government, that the boundaries fixed - by the constitution between the different departments - should be preserved--a just regard to the constitution and - to the duty of my office, under all the circumstances of - this case, forbid a compliance with your request. - - G. WASHINGTON.[73] - - UNITED STATES, _March 80, 1796_. - - -REFERENCE OF THE ANSWER TO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. - -MARCH 31.--Mr. BLOUNT moved that the Message be referred to a Committee -of the Whole on the state of the Union. - -Mr. GILES was of opinion it had better be referred to a Committee of the -Whole simply. - -Mr. SEDGWICK saw no reason for such a reference. He wished gentlemen -would point out the object of the motion. - -Mr. THATCHER saw no good to be obtained by referring it. The House had -requested the PRESIDENT to lay certain papers before them; the -PRESIDENT answers, that he has none for them. Why a reference? The House -asked a question; the PRESIDENT answered in the negative--for what -purpose refer the answer? what would be gained by it? - -Mr. BLOUNT observed, that the PRESIDENT's Message stands upon the -journals of the House; he wished, also, that the House should state upon -their journals the reasons which influenced them to make the request. -Perhaps, also, he said, a consideration of the Message might lead to -some further measure proper to be adopted. He was indifferent whether it -was referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, or a -Committee of the Whole, simply. - -Mr. NICHOLAS remarked that it was prejudging the question to say that -nothing could arise out of a consideration of the Message. The present -is a crisis important in the affairs of the country, independently of -the Treaty. If the Message was a proper subject of discussion, it was -proper to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. He did not think a -reference to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union -proper; because the Message points to a subject differing from that -referred to that committee. The investigation at any rate could produce -nothing wrong. - -Mr. GILES said, that the member from North Carolina (Mr. BLOUNT) had -explained the object he had in view by a reference. He preferred a -reference to a Committee of the Whole, independently; because the -Message itself would furnish matter enough for consideration by itself. -He should object to its being referred to the Committee of the Whole, -who are to take into consideration the British Treaty; because he never -would consent to act upon that subject till the papers deemed material -to the investigation were laid upon the table. He hoped the reference to -a Committee of the Whole, generally, would be agreed to. It certainly -would be proper for the House to state their reasons for the call. This -call had given rise to a great constitutional question; the PRESIDENT -had stated the reasons of his opinion; if the House were not convinced -by them, (and he owned that, for one, he was not,) then it would be -proper that they should present to the public their reasons for -differing with him. - -Mr. THATCHER argued, that the reasons of the House were contained in the -speeches of members in favor of the motion; the papers had been filled -with them, and a pamphlet was going to be published containing them all. -If this was not sufficient, the gentlemen had better direct the pamphlet -to be copied on the journals. - -Mr. WILLIAMS considered this a new question, and wished for time to -consider. The PRESIDENT's Message is only an answer to a request of the -House. It does not call for any thing to be done, then why a reference? -Such a reference would be unprecedented. Entering the reasons of the -House on the journals could produce no good. The House could not call -for the papers more than they had done. He reminded the House that -three weeks had already been spent in agreeing to the call; if they -agreed to the present motion, they would spend as much more in agreeing -to the reasons. The PRESIDENT, in his Message, had mentioned the -proceedings of the grand Convention; this was a new topic to him not -started in debate; when the Treaty is before the House, perhaps they -might wish to have the Message before them on that ground. He should -vote for the reference if gentlemen could assign (what they had not yet -done) a proper motive for it. - -Mr. SEDGWICK urged that the reasons of the majority would make a large -book. Were the Committee of the Whole to turn authors and write a -dissertation on part of the constitution? The people did not send their -Representatives here for any such purpose, and he hoped it would not be -persisted in. If the reasons of the House were to be drafted, he -ventured to predict, that they would reach the end of their political -career before the discussion that must necessarily arise upon them would -be brought to a close. Such a measure would be unprecedented, and lead -to a great waste of time, and continually defeat the real objects of -their mission. The session had been long enough already, and it must be -lengthened to accomplish the necessary business of it. If the gentlemen -would write books, he was confident every body would buy them; but he -could not see the propriety of the present motion. - -Mr. BLOUNT observed, that the PRESIDENT refers, in his Message, to the -debate in the House, and insinuates that the House contend for a right -not given them by the constitution. This was the first instance of any -importance of a difference between the House of Representatives and the -Executive respecting a great constitutional point; it was then proper to -make such a disposal of the Message as to enable the House to state -their reasons in support of their opinion, that the people may be -rightly informed, that they may see the House is attempting no -encroachment. - -Mr. HEATH hoped the Message would not be passed over in silence. The -PRESIDENT surely is not infallible. A very important constitutional -question is involved; he hoped the reference would be agreed to. - -Mr. SITGREAVES was against the motion. The House have made a demand on -the PRESIDENT; the PRESIDENT refused it; this must naturally put an end -to the correspondence on this subject. The difference of sentiment -between the two branches is not sufficient reason for converting the -journals of the House into a volume of debates. If the majority are to -place their reasons, the minority cannot be denied the same indulgence; -then for a rejoinder, rebutters, surrebutters, without end. From the -practice of the House, in a case analogous, a rule of conduct for the -present case may be drawn. When a bill is sent to the PRESIDENT, if he -dislikes it, he negatives and sends it to the House with his reasons. -Those reasons are put on the journals, as directed by the constitution; -but it contains nothing to direct or authorize the majority to register -their reasons, and thus to enter into a controversy. The return bill is -put to vote, and if two-thirds of each House agree to it, it passes; if -not, it falls to the ground, but no reasons are entered on the part of -the House. - -Mr. GALLATIN said he did not expect the motion for a reference would -have met with any opposition. Some members are of opinion, that the -Message should be passed over in silence; others had resolved to ground -some act upon it. There exists a difference, then, on this first point. -The natural course is, then, a reference to a Committee of the Whole, to -determine whether the House would act further on the business. - -In Committee of the Whole a discussion could be had concerning the -propriety of acting further on the Message. When the House made the call -for papers, they did not give their reasons in the resolution; it was -but a bare request. The PRESIDENT decided he could not comply with it. -If he had stopped here, perhaps there might be grounds for ending the -correspondence here; but he was not satisfied with this, but has entered -into his motives for refusing. Indeed, he had gone further; he had -adverted to the debates had in the House. He may be mistaken as to the -motives he ascribes to the House. In this delicate situation it is -certainly right to notice the Message, and to explain the real motives -of the House in support of the motion. If it is a novelty to reply to an -answer of the PRESIDENT's, it was equally a novelty, also, in making an -answer to notice a debate in support of a resolution. It is necessary to -refer the Message to a Committee of the Whole, to determine how to act. -He declared his mind was not made up upon this point, and therefore he -wished it referred to a Committee of the Whole. Not, however, to the -Committee on the state of the Union, because there exists no connection -with the subject referred to that committee. Referring to a Committee of -the Whole is deciding nothing, but only determining to examine; it could -not decide on the propriety of acting. - -Mr. COOPER said, that the further the gentlemen travelled a wrong road, -the further they would get out of a true course, and the more difficult -it would be to return. - -Mr. HARPER observed, that this was not the first attempt to get the -House to do something, to commit them to do something further. A motion -is now made to refer the Message to a Committee of the Whole, and the -House are told, that if the motion be carried, it is nothing, it is -deciding nothing, but will only lead to an inquiry whether the House -ought to act. He insisted that such a reference would in fact be -determining that they would act, and then, in committee, they would -determine how, and in that committee, he said they would be asked, why -did the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole if not to -act? So, when the Indian Treaty was ratified, a motion was made to -request the PRESIDENT to lay it before the House. When it was laid -before them, it was then contended that the House had a right to -interfere in the Treaty, or why ask for it? It could not be supposed -that gentlemen of any understanding could be imposed upon by such a -flimsy sophistry. It was now the proper time, and the House the proper -place, he contended, to settle the principle whether the House would -sanction any further proceedings on the Message. What reason could be -adduced for acting? It is said that the PRESIDENT has not only refused -the papers, but given his reasons for the refusal, and that his -reference to the debate, and the statement he made about the motives of -the House, might be found incorrect; that the PRESIDENT may have -attributed to the majority motives they were not willing to avow. The -motives had been avowed by the gentleman who led the business from -Pennsylvania. - -Mr. HARPER was called to order. He concluded by declaring that he would -vote against the reference. - -Mr. VARNUM observed, that a great constitutional question was to be -decided; two branches of the Government differed, and they had joined -issue. The PRESIDENT had given the reasons of his opinion; it was right, -also, that the people should know the sense of the House. Shall the -House take no further measures on the subject, and receive the answer of -the PRESIDENT as obligatory with regard to the question? He believed -every member of the House has, as well as the PRESIDENT, the right to -avow his principles, and to judge of the import of the different parts -of the constitution. The House he conceived under an obligation to -consider the question: if they found, upon consideration, reason to -recede from their opinions, he hoped they would. He wished the subject -examined with temper and candor. - -Mr. KITTERA chiefly dwelt on the length of time, which, if the motion -was agreed to, would be consumed in the business. He also touched on the -impropriety of entering into a disquisition on the merits of this -question on the journals. - -Mr. CRABB.--Mr. SPEAKER, I hope the Message received from the PRESIDENT, -in answer to the resolution of this House, calling for certain papers -relative to the British Treaty, will be referred to a Committee of the -whole House. My reasons for this wish are, because the PRESIDENT has -refused the papers on constitutional principles, and has thought proper -to go into a detail of the reasons which led to a formation of his -opinion; therefore I apprehend it proper to make the reference, in -order, that if the reasons urged by the PRESIDENT are such as to -convince this House that he is right as to the constitutional question, -that they may have an opportunity to acknowledge it, that it may be so -known and understood abroad, inasmuch as the contrary opinion has been -promulgated; and again, I wish the reference, that this House may, with -respect and calm deliberation, consider the PRESIDENT's Message, and the -reasons on which his refusal to send the papers is grounded, that if -those reasons are not such as to convince or change the opinion of this -House, they, in that case, may have an opportunity so to express -themselves, and to introduce resolutions to that effect, that the -opinion of this House, on this great constitutional question, after the -receipt and consideration of the PRESIDENT's Message, may be fully -known, clearly understood, and stamped on your journals. I think this a -necessary measure, inasmuch as sundry Treaties lately negotiated are now -before this House, and by a declaratory resolution, as before stated, -this House may save the constitutional principle, and feel themselves at -perfect liberty to pass the necessary laws to carry these Treaties into -complete effect, without conveying the implication, that they think they -are bound so to do, and have not a constitutional right to reject and -refuse, when even they shall judge the general prosperity of the Union, -and the interest of their constituents, may be promoted by that refusal. - -Mr. GILES said, he had not expected the subject would have been treated -with ridicule, and that members in reply should advise others to go and -write pamphlets. The motives of a branch of Government must necessarily -differ from the motives of individuals expressed in their speeches. A -majority of the House, when their sentiments are collected, speak the -sense of the House. He adverted to the practice of the House when the -PRESIDENT returns a bill, which had been mentioned by the opposers of -the motion, and observed, that in cases of that kind the message of the -PRESIDENT was acted upon. He observed on the importance of the subject, -and insisted on the propriety of the House expressing their reasons for -their vote. They owe it to themselves, to the United States, to the -whole world, to exhibit their reasons for what the PRESIDENT has -declared to be an unconstitutional call. For this purpose, the Message -should be referred to a Committee of the Whole, where a proper motion -would be brought forward, and could be freely discussed. If it had been -proposed to refer the Message to a select committee, to place the -business into a few hands, there might have been an objection, but a -reference to a Committee of the Whole he considered quite -unexceptionable. - -Mr. N. SMITH said the present was a most singular motion; and, after -noticing the several reasons which had been given for the measure, -thought none of them had any weight. He said the referring of the -Message could only have one effect; it would engage three weeks more of -their time; and yet, gentlemen who had been very economical with respect -to time, on the late great constitutional point, by calling for the -question from day to day, now proposed to consume it in the way -proposed. He should, however, now show that economy on account of time, -which had been so much insisted upon on a former occasion. - -The yeas and nays were now taken on the question of a reference of the -PRESIDENT's Message to a Committee of the Whole; and the motion was -agreed to--yeas 55, nays 37. - -DEBATE ON THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWER. - -APRIL 6.--The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the -Whole on said Message. - -Mr. BLOUNT brought forward the following resolutions: - - "_Resolved_, That, it being declared by the second section - of the second article of the constitution, 'that the - President shall have power, by and with the advice of the - Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senate - present concur,' the House of Representatives do not claim - any agency in making Treaties; but, that when a Treaty - stipulates regulations on any of the subjects submitted by - the constitution to the power of Congress, it must depend, - for its execution, as to such stipulations, on a law or - laws to be passed by Congress. And it is the constitutional - right and duty of the House of Representatives, in all such - cases, to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of - carrying such Treaty into effect, and to determine and act - thereon, as, in their judgment, may be most conducive to - the public good.[74] - - "_Resolved_, That it is not necessary to the propriety of - any application from this House to the Executive, for - information desired by them, and which may relate to any - constitutional functions of the House, that the purpose for - which such information may be wanted, or to which the same - may be applied, should be stated in the application." - -Mr. HARPER, Mr. DAYTON, and Mr. KITCHELL, offered a few remarks with -respect to the propriety of considering the resolutions now moved, or -those laid upon the table, by Mr. KITCHELL, a few days ago. After -which-- - -Mr. MADISON rose, and spoke as follows: When the Message was first -proposed to be committed, the proposition had been treated by some -gentlemen not only with levity, but with ridicule. He persuaded himself -that the subject would appear in a very different light to the -committee; and he hoped that it would be discussed on both sides without -either levity, intemperance, or illiberality. - -If there were any question which could make a serious appeal to the -dispassionate judgment, it must be one which respected the meaning of -the constitution; and if any constitutional question could make the -appeal with peculiar solemnity, it must be in a case like the present, -where two of the constituted authorities interpreted differently the -extent of their respective powers. - -It was a consolation, however, of which every member would be sensible, -to reflect on the happy difference of our situation, on such -occurrences, from that of governments in which the constituent members -possessed independent and hereditary prerogatives. In such governments, -the parties having a personal interest in their public stations, and not -being amenable to the national will, disputes concerning the limits of -their respective authorities might be productive of the most fatal -consequences. With us, on the contrary, although disputes of that kind -are always to be regretted, there were three most precious resources -against the evil tendency of them. In the first place, the -responsibility which every department feels to the public will, under -the forms of the constitution, may be expected to prevent the excesses -incident to conflicts between rival and irresponsible authorities. In -the next place, if the difference cannot be adjusted by friendly -conference and mutual concession, the sense of the constituent body, -brought into the Government through the ordinary elective channels, may -supply a remedy. And if this resource should fail, there remains, in the -third and last place, that provident article in the constitution itself, -by which an avenue is always open to the sovereignty of the people, for -explanations or amendments, as they might be found indispensable. - -If, in the present instance, it was to be particularly regretted that -the existing difference of opinion had arisen, every motive to the -regret was a motive to calmness, to candor, and the most respectful -delicacy towards the other constituted authority. On the other hand, the -duty which the House of Representatives must feel to themselves and to -their constituents, required that they should examine the subject with -accuracy, as well as with candor, and decide on it with firmness, as -well as with moderation. - -In this temper, he should proceed to make some observations on the -Message before the committee, and on the reasons contained in it. - -The Message related to two points. First. The application made for the -papers. Secondly. The constitutional rights of Congress, and of the -House of Representatives, on the subject of Treaties. - -On the first point, he observed, that the right of the House to apply -for any information they might want, had been admitted by a number in -the minority, who had opposed the exercise of the right in this -particular case. He thought it clear that the House must have a right, -in all cases, to ask for information which might assist their -deliberations on the subjects submitted to them by the constitution; -being responsible, nevertheless, for the propriety of the measure. He -was as ready to admit that the Executive had a right, under a due -responsibility, also, to withhold information, when of a nature that did -not permit a disclosure of it at the time. And if the refusal of the -PRESIDENT had been founded simply on a representation that the state of -the business within his department, and the contents of the papers asked -for, required it, although he might have regretted the refusal, he -should have been little disposed to criticise it. But the Message had -contested what appeared to him a clear and important right of the House; -and stated reasons for refusing the papers, which, with all the respect -he could feel for the Executive, he could not regard as satisfactory or -proper. - -One of the reasons was, that it did not occur to the Executive that the -papers could be relative to any purpose under the cognizance, and in the -contemplation of the House. The other was, that the purpose for which -they were wanted was not expressed in the resolution of the House. - -With respect to the first, it implied that the Executive was not only to -judge of the proper objects and functions of the Executive Department, -but, also, of the objects and functions of the House. He was not only to -decide how far the Executive trust would permit a disclosure of -information, but how far the Legislative trust could derive advantage -from it. It belonged, he said, to each department to judge for itself. -If the Executive conceived that, in relation to his own department, -papers could not be safely communicated, he might, on that ground, -refuse them, because he was the competent, though a responsible judge -within his own department. If the papers could be communicated without -injury to the objects of his department, he ought not to refuse them as -irrelative to the objects of the House of Representatives; because the -House was, in such cases, the only proper judge of its own objects. - -The other reason of refusal was, that the use which the House meant to -make of the papers was not expressed in the resolution. - -As far as he could recollect, no precedent could be found in the records -of the House, or elsewhere, in which the particular object in calling -for information was expressed in the call. It was not only contrary to -right to require this, but it would often be improper in the House to -express the object. In the particular case of an impeachment referred to -in the Message, it might be evidently improper to state that to be the -object of information which might possibly lead to it, because it would -involve the preposterous idea of first determining to impeach, and then -inquiring whether an impeachment ought to take place. Even the holding -out an impeachment as a contemplated or contingent result of the -information called for, might be extremely disagreeable in practice, as -it might inflict a temporary pain on an individual, whom an -investigation of facts might prove to be innocent, and perhaps -meritorious. - -From this view of the subject he could not forbear wishing that, if the -papers were to be refused, other reasons had been assigned for it. He -thought the resolutions offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, -one of which related to this subject, ought to stand on the journal -along with the Message which had been entered there. Both the -resolutions were penned with moderation and propriety. They went no -farther than to assert the rights of the House; they courted no reply; -and it ought not to be supposed they could give any offence. - -The second object to which the measure related was the constitutional -power of the House on the subject of Treaties. - -Here, again, he hoped it may be allowable to wish that it had not been -deemed necessary to take up, in so solemn a manner, a great -constitutional question, which was not contained in the resolution -presented by the House, which had been incidental only to the discussion -of that resolution, and which could only have been brought into view -through the unauthentic medium of the newspapers. This, however, would -well account for the misconception which had taken place in the doctrine -maintained by the majority in the late question. It had been understood -by the Executive, that the House asserted its assent to be necessary to -the validity of Treaties. This was not the doctrine maintained by them. -It was, he believed, fairly laid down in the resolution proposed, which -limited the power of the House over Treaties, to cases where Treaties -embraced Legislative subjects, submitted by the constitution to the -power of the House. - -Mr. M. did not mean to go into the general merits of this question, as -discussed when the former resolution was before the committee. The -Message did not request it, having drawn none of its reasoning from the -text of the constitution. It had merely affirmed that the power of -making Treaties is exclusively vested by the constitution in the -PRESIDENT, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Nothing -more was necessary on this point than to observe that the constitution -had as expressly and exclusively vested in Congress the power of making -laws, as it had vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate the power of making -Treaties. - -He proceeded to review the several topics on which the Message relied. -First. The intention of the body which framed the constitution. -Secondly. The opinions of the State Conventions who adopted it. Thirdly. -The peculiar rights and interests of the smaller States. Fourthly. The -manner in which the constitution had been understood by the Executive -and the foreign nations, with which Treaties had been formed. Fifthly. -The acquiescence and acts of the House on former occasions. - -1. When the members on the floor, who were members of the General -Convention, particularly a member from Georgia and himself, were called -on in a former debate for the sense of that body on the constitutional -question, it was a matter of some surprise, which was much increased by -the peculiar stress laid on the information expected. He acknowledged -his surprise, also, at seeing the Message of the Executive appealing to -the same proceedings in the General Convention, as a clue to the meaning -of the constitution. - -It had been his purpose, during the late debate, to make some -observations on what had fallen from the gentlemen from Connecticut and -Maryland, if the sudden termination of the debate had not cut him off -from the opportunity. He should have reminded them that this was the -ninth year since the Convention executed their trust, and that he had -not a single note in this place to assist his memory. He should have -remarked, that neither himself nor the other members who had belonged to -the Federal Convention, could be under any particular obligation to rise -in answer to a few gentlemen, with information, not merely of their own -ideas at that period, but of the intention of the whole body; many -members of which, too, had probably never entered into the discussions -of the subject. He might have further remarked, that there would not be -much delicacy in the undertaking, as it appeared that a sense had been -put on the constitution by some who were members of the Convention, -different from that which must have been entertained by others, who had -concurred in ratifying the Treaty. - -After taking notice of the doctrine of Judge Wilson, who was a member of -the Federal Convention, as quoted by Mr. GALLATIN from the Pennsylvania -debates, he proceeded to mention that three gentlemen, who had been -members of the convention, were parties to the proceedings in -Charleston, South Carolina, which, among other objections to the Treaty, -represented it as violating the constitution. That the very respectable -citizen, who presided at the meeting in Wilmington, whose resolutions -made a similar complaint, had also been a distinguished member of the -body that formed the constitution. - -It would have been proper for him, also, to have recollected what had, -on a former occasion, happened to himself during a debate in the House -of Representatives. When the bill for establishing a National Bank was -under consideration, he had opposed it, as not warranted by the -constitution, and incidentally remarked, that his impression might be -stronger, as he remembered that, in the convention, a motion was made -and negatived, for giving Congress a power to grant charters of -incorporation. This slight reference to the convention, he said, was -animadverted on by several in the course of the debate, and particularly -by a gentleman from Massachusetts, who had himself been a member of the -convention, and whose remarks were not unworthy the attention of the -committee. Here Mr. M. read a paragraph from Mr. GERRY's speech, from -the Gazette of the United States, page 814, protesting, in strong terms, -against arguments drawn from that source. - -Mr. M. said, he did not believe a single instance could be cited in -which the sense of the convention had been required or admitted as -material in any constitutional question. In the case of the Bank, the -committee had seen how a glance at that authority had been treated in -this House. When the question on the suability of the States was -depending in the Supreme Court, he asked, whether it had ever been -understood that the members of the bench, who had been members of the -convention, were called on for the meaning of the convention on that -very important point, although no constitutional question would be -presumed more susceptible of elucidation from that source? - -He then adverted to that part of the Message which contained an extract -from the Journal of the convention, showing that a proposition "that no -Treaty should be binding on the United States, which was not ratified by -law," was explicitly rejected. He allowed this to be much more precise -than any evidence drawn from the debates in the convention, or resting -on the memory of individuals. But, admitting the case to be as stated, -of which he had no doubt, although he had no recollection of it, and -admitting the record of the convention to be the oracle that ought to -decide the true meaning of the constitution, what did this abstract vote -amount to? Did it condemn the doctrine of the majority? So far from it, -that, as he understood their doctrine, they must have voted as the -convention did; for they do not contend that no Treaty shall be -operative without a law to sanction it; on the contrary, they admit that -some Treaties will operate without this sanction; and that it is no -further applicable in any case than where Legislative objects are -embraced by Treaties. The term "ratify" also deserved some attention; -for, although of loose signification in general, it had a technical -meaning different from the agency claimed by the House on the subject of -Treaties. - -But, after all, whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of -men who formed our constitution, the sense of that body could never be -regarded as the oracular guide in expounding the constitution. As the -instrument came from them it was nothing more than the draft of a plan, -nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it -by the voice of the people, speaking through the several State -Conventions. If we were to look, therefore, for the meaning of the -instrument beyond the face of the instrument, we must look for it, not -in the General Convention, which proposed, but in the State Convention, -which accepted and ratified the constitution. To these also the Message -had referred, and it would be proper to follow it. - -2. The debates of the convention in three States (Pennsylvania, -Virginia, and North Carolina) had been before introduced into the -discussion of this subject, and were believed the only publications of -the sort which contained any lights with respect to it. He would not -fatigue the committee with a repetition of the passages then read to -them. He would only appeal to the committee to decide whether it did not -appear, from a candid and collected view of the debates in those -conventions, and particularly in that of Virginia, that the -Treaty-making power was a limited power; and that the powers in our -constitution, on this subject, bore an analogy to the powers on the -same subject in the Government of Great Britain. He wished, as little -as any member could, to extend the analogies between the two -Governments; but it was clear that the constituent parts of two -Governments might be perfectly heterogeneous, and yet the powers be -similar. - -At once to illustrate his meaning, and give a brief reply to some -arguments on the other side, which had heretofore been urged with -ingenuity and learning, he would mention, as an example, the power of -pardoning offences. This power was vested in the PRESIDENT; it was a -prerogative also of the British King. And, in order to ascertain the -extent of the technical term "pardon," in our constitution, it would not -be irregular to search into the meaning and exercise of the power in -Great Britain. Yet, where is the general analogy between an hereditary -Sovereign, not accountable for his conduct, and a Magistrate like the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, elected for four years, with limited -powers, and liable to impeachment for the abuse of them? - -In referring to the debates of the State Conventions as published, he -wished not to be understood as putting entire confidence in the accuracy -of them. Even those of Virginia, which had been probably taken down by -the most skilful hand, (whose merit he wished by no means to disparage,) -contained internal evidence in abundance of chasms and misconceptions of -what was said. - -The amendments proposed by the several conventions were better -authority, and would be found, on a general view, to favor the sense of -the constitution which had prevailed in this House. But even here it -would not be reasonable to expect a perfect precision and system in all -their votes and proceedings. The agitations of the public mind on that -occasion, with the hurry and compromise which generally prevailed in -settling the amendments to be proposed, would at once explain and -apologize for the several apparent inconsistencies which might be -discovered. - -He would not undertake to say that the particular amendment referred to -in the Message, by which two States require that "no Commercial Treaty -should be ratified without the consent of two-thirds of the whole number -of Senators, and that no Territorial right, &c. should be ceded without -the consent of three-fourths of the members of both Houses," was -digested with an accurate attention to the whole subject. On the other -hand, it was no proof that those particular conventions, in annexing -these guards to the Treaty power, understood it as different from that -espoused by the majority of the House. They might consider Congress as -having the power contended for over Treaties stipulating on Legislative -subjects, and still very consistently wish for the amendment they -proposed. They might not consider the Territorial rights and other -objects for which they required the concurrence of three-fourths of the -members of both Houses, as coming within any of the enumerated powers -of Congress, and, therefore, as not protected by that control over -Treaties. And although they might be sensible that Commercial Treaties -were under that control, yet, as they would always come before Congress -with great weight after they had passed through the regular forms and -sanctions of the Treaty department, it might be deemed of real -importance that the authority should be better guarded which was to give -that weight to them. - -He asked, whether it might not happen, even in the progress of a Treaty -through the Treaty department, that each succeeding sanction might be -given, more on account of preceding sanctions than of any positive -approbation? And no one could doubt, therefore, that a Treaty which had -received all these sanctions would be controlled with great reluctance -by the Legislature, and, consequently, that it might be desirable to -strengthen the barriers against making improper Treaties, rather than -trust too much to the Legislative control over carrying them into -effect. - -But, said Mr. M., it will be proper to attend to other amendments -proposed by the ratifying conventions, which may throw light on their -opinions and intentions on the subject in question. He then read from -the Declaration of Rights proposed by Virginia to be prefixed to the -constitution, the seventh article, which is as follows: - - "That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of - laws, by any authority, without the consent of the - Representatives of the people in the Legislature, is - injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised." - -The Convention of North Carolina, as he showed, had laid down the same -principle in the same words. And it was to be observed that, in both -conventions, the article was under the head of a Declaration of Rights, -"asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and inalienable -rights of the people," according to the language of the Virginia -Convention; and "asserting and securing from encroachment the great -principles of civil and religious liberty, and the inalienable rights of -the people," as expressed by the Convention of North Carolina. It must -follow that these two Conventions considered it as a fundamental, -inviolable, and universal principle in a free Government, that no power -could supersede a law without the consent of the Representatives of the -people in the Legislature. - -In the Maryland Convention also, it was among the amendments proposed, -though he believed not decided on, "that no power of suspending laws, or -the execution of laws, unless derived from the Legislature, ought to be -exercised or allowed." - -The Convention of North Carolina had further explained themselves on -this point, by their twenty-third amendment proposed to the constitution -in the following words: "That no Treaties shall be directly opposed to -the existing laws of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be -valid until such laws shall be repealed or made conformable to such -Treaty; nor shall any Treaty be valid which is contradictory to the -Constitution of the United States." - -The latter part of the amendment was an evidence that the amendment was -intended to ascertain rather than to alter the meaning of the -constitution; as it could not be supposed to have been the real -intention of the constitution that a Treaty contrary to it should be -valid. - -He proceeded to read the following amendments accompanying the -ratification of State Conventions: - -The New York Convention had proposed "that no standing army or regular -troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace without the consent -of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives in each House." - -"That no money be borrowed on the credit of the United States, without -the assent of two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives in each -House." - -The New Hampshire Convention had proposed "that no standing army shall -be kept up in time of peace, unless with the consent of three quarters -of the members of each branch of Congress." In the Maryland Convention a -proposition was made in the same words. - -The Virginia Convention had proposed "that no navigation law, or law -regulating commerce, shall be passed without the consent of two-thirds -of the members present in both Houses." - -"That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in -time of peace, without the consent of two-thirds of the members present -in both Houses." - -"That no soldier shall be enlisted for any longer term than four years, -except in time of war, and then for no longer term than the continuance -of the war." - -The Convention of North Carolina had proposed the same three amendments -in the same words. - -On a review of these proceedings, may not, said he, the question be -fairly asked, whether it ought to be supposed that the several -Conventions who showed so much jealousy with respect to the powers of -commerce, of the sword, and of the purse, as to require, for the -exercise of them, in some cases two-thirds, in others three-fourths of -both branches of the Legislature, could have understood that, by the -Treaty clauses in constitution, they had given to the PRESIDENT and -Senate, without any control whatever from the House of Representatives, -an absolute and unlimited power over all those great objects? - -3. It was with great reluctance, he said, that he should touch on the -third topic--the alleged interest of the smaller States in the present -question. He was the more unwilling to enter into this delicate part of -the discussion, as he happened to be from a State which was in one of -the extremes in point of size. He should limit himself, therefore, to -two observations. The first was, that if the spirit of amity and mutual -concession from which the constitution resulted was to be consulted on -expounding it, that construction ought to be favored which would -preserve the mutual control between the Senate and House of -Representatives, rather than that which gave power to the Senate not -controllable by, and paramount over those of the House of -Representatives, whilst the House of Representatives could in no -instance exercise their powers without the participation and control of -the Senate. The second observation was, that, whatever jealousy might -unhappily have prevailed between the smaller and larger States, as they -had most weight in one or the other branch of Government, it was a fact, -for which he appealed to the journals of the old Congress from its birth -to its dissolution, and to those of the Congress under the present -Government, that in no instance would it appear, from the yeas and nays, -that a question had been decided by a division of the votes according to -the size of the States. He considered this truth as affording the most -pleasing and consoling reflection, and as one that ought to have the -most conciliating and happy influence on the temper of all the States. - -4. A fourth argument in the Message was drawn from the manner by which -the Treaty power had been understood by both parties in the negotiations -with foreign Powers. "In all the Treaties made _we_ have declared and -_they_ have believed," &c. By _we_, he remarked, was to be understood -the Executive alone, who had made the declaration, and in no respect the -House of Representatives. It was certainly to be regretted, as had often -been expressed, that different branches of the Government should -disagree in the construction of their powers; but when this could not be -avoided, each branch must judge for itself; and the judgment of the -Executive could in this case be no more an authority overruling the -judgment of the House than the judgment of the House could be an -authority overruling that of the Executive. It was also to be regretted -that any foreign nation should at any time proceed under a misconception -of the meaning of our constitution. But no principle was better -established in the laws of nations, as well as in common reason, than -that one nation is not to be the interpreter of the constitution of -another. Each nation must adjust the forms and operations of its own -government, and all others are bound to understand them accordingly. It -had before been remarked, and it would be proper to repeat it here, that -of all the nations Great Britain would be the least likely to object to -this principle, because the construction given to our Government was -particularly exemplified in her own. - -5. In the fifth and last place, he had to take notice of the suggestion, -that every House of Representatives had concurred in the construction of -the Treaty power, now maintained by the Executive; from which it -followed that the House could not now consistently act under a -different construction. On this point, it might be sufficient to remark, -that this was the first instance in which a foreign Treaty had been made -since the establishment of the constitution; and that this was the first -time the Treaty-making power had come under formal and accurate -discussion. Precedents, therefore, would readily be perceived to lose -much of their weight. But whether the precedents found in the -proceedings preparatory to the Algerine Treaty, or in the provisions -relative to the Indian Treaties, were inconsistent with the right which -had been contended for in behalf of the House, he should leave to be -decided by the committee. A view of these precedents had been pretty -fully presented to them by a gentleman from New York, (Mr. LIVINGSTON,) -with all the observations which the subject seemed to require. - -On the whole it appeared that the rights of the House on the two great -constitutional points had been denied by a high authority in the Message -before the committee. This Message was entered on the journals of the -House. If nothing was entered in opposition thereto, it would be -inferred that the reasons in the Message had changed the opinion of the -House, and that their claims on those great points were relinquished. It -was proper, therefore, that the questions, brought fairly before the -committee in the propositions of the gentleman (Mr. BLOUNT) from North -Carolina, should be examined and formally decided. If the reasoning of -the Message should be deemed satisfactory, it would be the duty of this -branch of the Government to reject the propositions and thus accede to -the doctrines asserted by the Executive. If, on the other hand, this -reasoning should not be satisfactory, it would be equally the duty of -the House, in some such firm, but very decent, terms as are proposed, to -enter their opinions on record. In either way the meaning of the -constitution would be established, as far as depends on the vote of the -House of Representatives. - -APRIL 7.--The order of the day being called for on the consideration of -the PRESIDENT's Message, the House resolved itself into a Committee of -the Whole on that subject, and the resolutions of Mr. BLOUNT having been -read-- - -Mr. SWIFT and Mr. W. SMITH rose together, but Mr. SMITH giving way, Mr. -SWIFT proceeded to remark, that he did not rise for the purpose of going -into the subject, but to move that the question might be then taken. The -same principles which were involved in the present question, had already -undergone a discussion of three weeks, and no doubt could remain on the -mind of any gentleman in that House on the subject; nor did he think -that if three weeks more were to be consumed in the discussion, one -opinion would be changed. Therefore, as business of the utmost -consequence called for their attention, as it was of the last importance -that the Treaties lately formed with foreign nations should be carried -into effect, he hoped they would enter upon the question of the state of -the Union. If gentlemen wished to carry the Treaties into effect, he -entreated them to come forward and do so; or, if they meant to defeat -them, he wished them at once to say so. If they went into the present -discussion at length, there would not be time sufficient to determine -upon the Treaties. He was willing to let the matter rest upon the -representation of the gentleman from Virginia. He himself had taken no -share in the debate, though if it were to be again gone into, he should -desire to be heard as well as others. But he was fully satisfied that -gentlemen who had spoken on a former occasion would unite with him in -wishing the question to be then taken. - -The resolutions were then severally put and carried--51 members rising -for each. - -The House then took them up. - -The previous question was called, viz: Shall the question now be -put?--on which the yeas and nays were taken, and stood--yeas 54, nays -37. - -The yeas and nays were taken on the first resolution, and stood--yeas -57, nays 35, as follows: - - YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, - Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, - Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, John Clopton, Isaac - Coles, Jeremiah Crabb, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, Samuel - Earle, William Findlay, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, - William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Andrew Gregg, William B. - Grove, Wade Hampton, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, - John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, John Heath, Daniel - Heister, George Jackson, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, - William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James - Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Frederick A. - Muhlenberg, John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, - Josiah Parker, John Patton, Francis Preston, John Richards, - Robert Rutherford, John S. Sherburne, Israel Smith, Samuel - Smith, Thomas Sprigg, John Swanwick, Absalom Tatom, Philip - Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and - Richard Winn. - - _Nays._--Fisher Ames, Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, - Daniel Buck, Joshua Coit, William Cooper, Abiel Foster, - Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, Benjamin - Goodhue, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe - Harper, Thomas Hartley, Thomas Henderson, James Hillhouse, - William Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Francis - Malbone, William Vans Murray, John Reed, Theodore Sedgwick, - Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William Smith, Zephaniah - Swift, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, - Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John - Williams. - -The second resolution was then taken up, and the yeas and nays stood as -on the first. - -The following members were absent when the yeas and nays were called on -the main questions: - -Messrs. Brent, Claiborne, Gillespie, Greenup, Holland, New, and -Sitgreaves. - -The following members were away upon leave of absence: - -Messrs. Freeman, Kitchell, Leonard and Isaac Smith. - -It was understood that the following members would have voted for the -resolutions had they been present: - -Messrs. Brent, Claiborne, Gillespie, Greenup, Holland, and New. - - -RECAPITULATION. - -Yeas in the House, 57 - -Yeas absent, 6--63 - -Nays in the House, 35 - -Mr. Sitgreaves absent (probably -against the resolution) 1--36 - -- - Majority for the resolutions, 27[75] - -Absent on leave, 4 - -Mr. Duvall, resigned, 1 - -The Speaker, 1 - ---- - Whole number of members, 105 - - -FRIDAY, April 15. - -_The Treaty with Great Britain._ - -The House then resolved itself into a committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union, when, having read the resolution for carrying the -British Treaty into effect-- - -Mr. BUCK rose, and wished the question to be taken upon Mr. MACLAY's -resolution.[76] This was opposed by Mr. MADISON and Mr. HILLHOUSE, and -then Mr. MADISON addressed the Chair as follows: - -Mr. M. said, on a subject of such extent and importance, he should not -attempt to go through all the observations that might be applicable to -it. A general view of the subject was all that he meant at present. His -omissions would be more than supplied by others who might enter into the -discussion. - -The proposition immediately before the committee was, that the Treaty -with Great Britain ought to be carried into effect by such provisions as -depended on the House of Representatives. This was the point immediately -in question. But it would be proper in examining it to keep in view -also the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MACLAY) -which had been referred to the committee, and which would be taken up, -of course, if the immediate question should be decided in the negative. - -If the proposition for carrying the Treaty into effect be agreed to, it -must be from one of three considerations: either that the Legislature is -bound by a constitutional necessity to pass the requisite laws without -examining the merits of the Treaty, or that, on such examination, the -Treaty is deemed in itself a good one, or that there are good extraneous -reasons for putting it into force, although it be in itself a good one, -or that there are good extraneous reasons for putting it into force, -although it be in itself a bad Treaty. - -The first consideration being excluded by the decision of the House, -that they have a right to judge of the expediency or inexpediency of -passing laws relative to Treaties; the question first to be examined -must relate to the merits of the Treaty. He then proceeded to consider -the Treaty under three aspects: first, as it related to the execution of -the Treaty of Peace in 1783; secondly, as it determines the several -points in the law of nations; thirdly, as it respects the commerce -between the two nations. - -First. He would not inquire on which side the blame lay, of having first -violated the Treaty of 1783, or of having most contributed to delay its -execution, although he did not shrink from the task under any -apprehension that the result could be disadvantageous to this country. -The Treaty itself had waived this inquiry, and professed to adjust all -controversies on this subject, without regard to the mutual complaints -or pretensions of the parties. It was, therefore, justly and naturally -to be expected, that the arrangements for carrying that Treaty into -effect would have been founded in the most exact and scrupulous -reciprocity. Was this the case? He was sorry, that on the contrary, the -arrangements were founded on the grossest violation of that principle. - -There were two articles which had not been executed by Great Britain; -that which related to the negroes and other property carried away, and -that which required a surrender of the posts. The article unexecuted by -the United States was, that which required payment of all _bona fide_ -debts, according to the Treaty now in question: this article is now to -be carried into the most complete effect by the United States, and -damages to the last fraction are to be paid for the delay. Is there a -reciprocal stipulation by Great Britain with respect to the articles -unexecuted by her? Nothing like it. She is wholly absolved from the -obligation to fulfil one of the articles, viz: that relating to the -negroes, &c., and she is to make no compensation whatever for delaying -to fulfil the other, viz: the surrender of the posts. - -It has been urged in apology for those very unequal stipulations, that -the injury resulting from a forbearance to surrender the posts, was not -susceptible of any precise liquidation into pecuniary damages. However -plausible this might appear, it was by no means satisfactory. -Commissioners, such as were appointed, with full discretion for other -purposes, might have been charged with this subject, and if they could -not have done exact justice, might have mitigated the injustice of doing -nothing. - -Apologies have been attempted also for the very extraordinary -abandonment of the compensation due for the negroes, &c. It was said to -be at least doubtful whether this claim was authorized by the seventh -article of the Treaty of Peace, and that Great Britain had uniformly -denied the meaning put by the United States on that article. In reply he -made two remarks. First, that it was not true that Great Britain had -uniformly denied the American construction of that article; on the -contrary, he believed, it could be proved, that till of late, Great -Britain had uniformly admitted this construction, and had rejected the -claim on no other ground than the alleged violation of the fourth -article on the part of the United States. - -But had it been true that Great Britain had uniformly asserted a -different construction of the article, and refused to accede to ours, -what ought to have been done? Ought we to have at once acceded to hers? -By no means. Each party had an equal right to interpret the compact; and -if they could not agree, they ought to have done in this what they did -in other cases where they could not agree; that is, have referred the -settlement of the meaning of the compact to an arbitration. To give up -the claim altogether, was to admit, either that Great Britain had a -better right than the United States to explain the controverted point, -or that the United States had done something which in justice called for -a sacrifice of their equal right. - -It was evident, he thought, from this view of the subject, that the -arrangements with respect to the Treaty of Peace were frequently wanting -both in justice and reciprocity. - -Besides the omissions in favor of Great Britain, already pointed out -with respect to the execution of the Treaty of Peace, he observed, that -conditions were annexed to the partial execution of it in the surrender -of the Western posts, which increased the general inequality of this -part of the Treaty, and essentially affected the value of those objects. - -The value of the posts to the United States was to be estimated by their -influence, 1st. on the Indian trade; 2d. on the conduct and temper of -the Indians towards the United States. - -Their influence on the Indian trade depended principally on the -exclusive command they gave to the several carrying places connected -with the posts. These places were understood to be of such importance in -this respect, that those who possessed them exclusively would have a -monopoly, or nearly a monopoly, of the lucrative intercourse with a -great part of the savage nations. Great Britain having hitherto -possessed these places exclusively, has possessed this advantage. It -was expected that the exclusive transfer of them would transfer the -advantage to the United States. By the Treaty now concluded, the -carrying places are to be enjoyed in common, and it will be determined -by the respective advantages under which British and American traders -will engage in the trade, which of them is to share most in it. In this -point of view he thought the regulation highly impolitic and injurious. -He would say little of the advantage which the British would have in -their superior capital: that must be encountered in all our commercial -rivalships. But there was another consideration which ought to have -great weight on this subject. The goods imported for the Indian trade -through Canada pay no duties. Those imported through the United States -for that trade, will have paid duties from seven to ten per cent., and -every one must see that a drawback is impracticable, or would be -attended with an expense which the business would not bear. So far, -then, as the importance of the posts is to be considered in a commercial -view, they are, in a very great measure, stripped of it by the condition -annexed to the surrender of them. Instead of a monopoly in our favor, -the carrying places are made common under circumstances which may leave -a monopoly in the hands of Great Britain. And this is done, too, by an -article which is to last for ever. - -Second. The influence of the posts on the general conduct of the -Indians, is well known to depend chiefly on their influence on the -Indian trade. In proportion, therefore, as the condition annexed to the -surrender of posts affects the one, it must affect the other. If the -British should continue to enjoy the Indian trade, they would continue -to influence the Indian conduct; if not in the same degree as -heretofore, at least in so great a degree as to condemn the article in -question. - -He took notice also of the inequality of the stipulation which opened -all the ports of the United States, as the condition of having those of -an unimportant province of Great Britain opened in return. - -With respect to the Mississippi he could not but consider the clause -relating to it as being singularly reprehensible. Happily the adjustment -of our claims with Spain had been brought about before any evil -operation of the clause had been experienced. But the tendency of it, he -thought, could not be doubted. It was the more remarkable, that this -extension of the privileges of Great Britain on the Mississippi beyond -those in the Treaty of Peace, should have been admitted into the new -Treaty, because it is supposed by the Treaty itself, that Great Britain -may be deprived, by her real boundary, of all pretensions to a share in -the banks and waters of the Mississippi. - -Secondly. With respect to the great points in the law of nations, -comprehended in the stipulations of the Treaty, the same want of real -reciprocity, and the same sacrifice of the interests of the United -States, were conspicuous. - -It was well known to have been a great and favorite object with the -United States, "that free ships make free goods." They have established -this principle in all their other Treaties. They have witnessed with -anxiety the general effort, and the successful advances towards -incorporating this principle into the law of nations; a principle -friendly to all neutral nations, and particularly interesting to the -United States. He knew that at a former period it had been conceded on -the part of the United States that the law of nations stood as the -present Treaty regulates it. But it did not follow that more than -acquiescence in that doctrine was proper. There was an evident -distinction between silently acquiescing in it, and giving it the -support of a formal and positive stipulation. The former was all that -could have been required, and the latter was more than ought to have -been unnecessarily yielded. - -The article prohibiting sequestration was next considered by Mr. M. He -said he should probably be among the last who would be disposed to -resort to such an expedient for redress. But he could not approve of a -perpetual and irrecoverable abandonment of a defensive weapon, the -existence of which might render the use of it unnecessary. The situation -of this country in relation to Great Britain was a peculiar one. As we -had not fleets and armies to command a respect for our rights, we ought -to keep in our hands all such means as our situation gave us. This -article was another instance in which no regard was paid to reciprocity. -British subjects, it was well known, had and were likely to have in this -country a great deal of the property of the King made sacred. American -citizens, it was as well known, had little, and were likely to have -little of the kind in Great Britain. If a real reciprocity had been -intended, why were not other kinds of private property, as vessels and -their cargoes, equally protected against violation? These, even within -the jurisdiction of Great Britain, are left open to seizure and -sequestration, if Great Britain finds it expedient. And why was not -property on the high seas under the protection of the law of nations, -which is said to be a part of the law of the land, made secure by a like -stipulation? This would have given a face of equality and reciprocity to -the bargain. But nothing of the sort makes a part of it; where Great -Britain had a particular interest at stake, the Treaty watchfully -provides for it; when the United States have an equal interest at stake -and equally entitled to protection, it is abandoned to all the dangers -which it has experienced. - -After taking this brief notice of the positive evils in this part of the -Treaty, he might, he said, add the various omissions which were -chargeable on it. But as he should not pretend to exhaust the subject, -he would mention one only: the not providing for the respect due to the -exhibition of sea papers. He could not but regard this omission as truly -extraordinary, when he observed that in almost every modern Treaty, and -particularly all our other Treaties, an article on this subject was -regularly inserted. Indeed, it had become almost an article of course in -the Treaties of the present century. - -Thirdly. The commercial articles of the Treaty presented the third -aspect under which he was to consider it. In the free intercourse -stipulated between the United States and Great Britain, it could not be -pretended that any advantage was gained by the former. A Treaty was -surely not necessary to induce Great Britain to receive our raw -materials and to sell us her manufactures. On the other hand, consider -what was given up by the United States. - -When the Government came into operation, it is well known that the -American tonnage employed in the British trade bore the most -inconsiderable proportion to the British tonnage. There being nothing on -our side to contract the influence of capital and other circumstances on -the British side, that disproportion was the natural state of things. As -some balance to the British advantages, and particularly that of her -capital, our laws had made several regulations in favor of our shipping, -among which was the important encouragement resulting from the -difference of ten per cent. in the duties paid by American and foreign -vessels. Under this encouragement the American tonnage has increased in -a very respectable proportion to the British tonnage. Nor has Great -Britain ever deemed it prudent to attempt any countervailing measures -for her shipping, well knowing that we could easily keep up the -differences by further measures on our side. But by the Treaty, she has -reserved to herself the right to take such countervailing measures -against our existing regulations; and we have surrendered our rights to -pursue further defensive measures against the influence of her capital. -It is justly to be apprehended, therefore, that under such a restoration -of the former state of things, the American tonnage will relapse to its -former disproportion to the British tonnage. - -When he turned his attention to the West India branch of the subject, -there was still greater cause for wonder and dissatisfaction. As the -Treaty now stood, Great Britain was left as free as she ever had been to -continue the entire monopoly of the intercourse to British vessels. -Recollecting, as he did, and as every member of the committee must do, -the whole history of this subject from the peace of 1783, through every -subsequent stage of our Independence down to the mission of the late -Envoy, it was impossible for him to express his astonishment that any -Treaty of Commerce should have ever been acceded to which abandoned the -very object for which such a Treaty was ever contemplated. He never -could have believed that the time was so near when all the principles, -claims, and calculations, which have heretofore prevailed among all -classes of people, in every part of the Union, on this interesting -point, were to be so completely renounced. A Treaty of Commerce with -Great Britain, excluding a reciprocity for our vessels in the West India -trade, is a phenomenon which had filled him with more surprise than he -knew how to express. - -He then pointed to the clause which restrains the United States from -imposing prohibitions or duties in any case on Britain which did not -extend to all other nations; observing that the clause made it -impossible to operate on the unreasonable policy of that nation, without -suspending our commerce at the same time with all other nations whose -regulations with respect to us might be ever so favorable and -satisfactory. - -The fifteenth article had another extraordinary feature, which must -strike every observer. In other Treaties, putting the parties on the -footing of the most favored nation, it was stipulated that where new -favors were granted to a particular nation in return for favors -received, the party claiming the new favor should pay the price of it. -This was just and proper where the footing of the most favored nation is -established at all. But this article gives to Great Britain the full -benefit of all privileges that may be granted to any other nation, -without requiring from her the same or equivalent privileges with those -granted by such nation. Hence it would happen that if Spain, Portugal, -or France, should open their Colonial ports to the United States in -consideration of certain privileges in our trade, the same privileges -would result gratis, and _ipso facto_, to Great Britain. He considered -this stipulation as peculiarly impolitic, and that it could not fail, in -the view of the committee, to form a very solid and weighty objection to -the Treaty. - -He was not unaware of the stress that would be laid on the article -relating to the East Indies. He should leave to others better acquainted -than himself with this branch of the subject to explain it. He made two -observations, however: one was, that judicious and well informed -gentlemen, equally judicious and well informed with any who could be -consulted, considered the article as offering not a shadow of advantage -to the United States. The other was, that no privilege was stipulated -which had not been uniformly heretofore granted without stipulation; and -as the grant could have proceeded from no motive but a pure regard to -the British interest in that country, there was every reasonable -security that the trade would continue open as it had been, under the -influence of the same consideration. - -Such being the character of the Treaty, with respect to the execution of -the Treaty of Peace, the great principles of the Law of Nations, and the -regulations of commerce, it never could be viewed as having any claim to -be carried into effect on its own account. - -He should conclude, he said, with taking notice of two considerations -which had been much used as inducements to carrying the Treaty into -effect. - -1. It was said that the greater part of the Treaty was to continue two -years only after the present war in Europe; and that no very great evils -could grow out of it within that period. To this he replied, in the -first place, that ten of the articles containing many very objectionable -stipulations were perpetual. In the next place, that it would be in the -power of Great Britain, at the expiration of the other articles, to -produce the same causes for a renewal of them, as are now urged in their -favor. If we are now to enforce the Treaty, lest Great Britain should -stir up the Indians, and refuse to pay the merchants for the property of -which she has plundered them, can she not at the end of two or three -years plunder them again to the same or a greater amount? cannot the -same apprehensions also be then revived with respect to the Indians, and -will not the arguments then be as strong as they are now, for renewing -the same Treaty, or making any other equal sacrifice that her purposes -may dictate? - -2. It was asked, what would be the consequence of refusing to carry the -Treaty into effect? He answered, that the only supposable consequence -was, that the Executive, if governed by the prudence and patriotism -which he did not doubt would govern that department, would, of course, -pursue the measures most likely to obtain a reconsideration and -remodification of the offensive parts of the Treaty. The idea of war, as -a consequence of refusing to give effect to the Treaty, was too -visionary and incredible to be admitted into the question. No man would -say that the United States, if an independent people, had not a right to -judge of their own interests, and to decline any Treaty that did not -duly provide for them. A refusal, therefore, in such cases, could give -no cause, nor pretext, nor provocation, for war or for any just -resentment. But apart from this, was it conceivable that Great Britain, -with all the dangers and embarrassments which are thickening upon her, -would wantonly make war on a country which was the best market she had -in the world for her manufactures, which paid her an annual balance in -specie of ten or twelve millions of dollars, and whose supplies were -moreover essential to an important part of her dominions? Such a degree -of infatuation ought not to be ascribed to any nation. And at the -present crisis, for reasons well known, an unprovoked war with Great -Britain, on this country, would argue a degree of madness greater than -under any other circumstances that could well be imagined. - -With all the objections therefore to the Treaty which he had stated, he -hoped that it would not now be carried into effect; and that an -opportunity would take place for reconsidering the subject on principles -more just and more favorable to the United States. - -When Mr. MADISON had concluded, - -Mr. S. LYMAN rose.--I do not rise, said Mr. L., with an intention to go -into a detail upon this subject, or to exhibit a comparative view of -the advantages and disadvantages which may attend the operation of this -Treaty, but only to make a few remarks, which may be considered as -preparatory to a more minute discussion. - -Although I believe a discussion of this Treaty is not strictly in order, -because it does not come before us immediately as a subject of debate -and legislation, but as a piece of information from the Executive, yet I -have no doubt but that a thorough discussion of its principles may -produce a happy effect; for I believe the more it is understood, the -less various will be Our sentiments, the greater the degree of unanimity -among ourselves, so much the greater will be the unanimity among our -constituents. This unanimity is an object of the greatest magnitude, not -only as the source of national respectability and honor, but as the only -true source of national happiness and prosperity; it is therefore the -indispensable duty of Government to maintain internal peace and -tranquillity, and upon this ground alone it is I am willing the Treaty -should be thoroughly discussed. I am sensible this Treaty presents -itself with an unfavorable aspect, and what is the reason? Is it not -because we have entertained too exalted ideas of our own national -importance? A generous and noble pride we ought to entertain as a -nation, and without this pride we should be guilty of ingratitude to -Heaven, for Providence has placed within our reach all the resources of -national strength and greatness, but we are yet among the nations in a -state of minority--a minor must solicit favors, he cannot challenge -them. Did we go to the Emperor of Morocco, or to the Dey of Algiers, and -challenge a passage for our ships up the Mediterranean? No; but we -solicited, and pay dear for that passage; or did we go to the King of -Spain, and demand a free navigation of the Mississippi? No; but we -negotiated, and success has attended that negotiation; or could we have -gone to the King of England, and challenged a participation with his -subjects in the commerce of the East and West Indies? Certainly we could -not. What then should we have done? Would it have been best to have -traded with them upon sufferance, and so to have maintained a precarious -kind of commerce? Certainly this would not have done, for in that case -we should have been constantly dependent upon the caprice of a -capricious Court; this would be extremely mortifying indeed. Commerce, -like all other kind of business, ought to be carried on upon generous -and open principles, otherwise we establish a system of deceit that -would be favorable to pirates and freebooters. - -Under those circumstances what could we have done? We could not have -carved for ourselves, for our strength and greatness were not -sufficient; we therefore had to go with the modesty of a minor, and to -solicit; and what was the natural consequence of this solicitation? Why, -at the first interview with the British Minister, he determined to exact -of us at least a complete fulfilment of all that a former Treaty -required; and what was that? It was a payment of our _bona fide_ debts; -what could we do? He produced our contract, and we said nothing; moral -rectitude required a fulfilment of this: it was in vain to say, you have -interrupted our commerce, you have carried off our negroes, you have -retained the Western posts, and thereby occasioned an expensive and -bloody war with the Indians. Some of this language, perhaps, would have -had weight with the British Minister, if he had been acting in his -private capacity, but he felt and acted like the Minister of a great and -powerful nation; interest and glory are their objects, and moral -considerations are too apt to vanish before these. It is true, by the -law of nature, commerce ought to be free and uninterrupted, but by the -law of nations it is otherwise; and what nation shall gainsay this law? -We certainly cannot, our strength and greatness are not yet fully ripe; -and if they were, we should, in practice, deny this law of nature, and -should ratify and confirm this law of nations. Thus, Mr. Chairman, we -see that interest and force govern among the nations. I have made these -preliminary observations in order that we might contemplate the Treaty -upon its true ground, for a want of reciprocity has been a heavy charge -brought against it. - -I have read this Treaty with care and attention, and I am free to own -that upon the first perusal of it I had a prejudice against it; it -appeared to me that some of its stipulations were too favorable for -Britain, and too disadvantageous to ourselves; but we certainly had an -able negotiator, and I verily believe he did his utmost to serve his -country; the more I have attended to the subject, the more I am -reconciled to it. I find the gentlemen who are interested in commerce -are almost universally satisfied with the commercial regulations; but -there is a more weighty charge brought against it than of a want of -reciprocity; it is even said by some to be unconstitutional. This is a -heavy charge indeed, and if it is well founded we ought to prevent its -operation, for we are sent here as the guardians of the rights of our -fellow-citizens, and for that purpose are sworn to support their -constitution; if it is unconstitutional, it is a nullity; it is not -binding upon the nation; we ought to reject it; but if it is -constitutional, and not extremely pernicious, it becomes the supreme law -of the land, and we are in that case bound to obey it. - -When Mr. LYMAN had taken his seat, - -Mr. SWANWICK addressed the Chair:--One of the most characteristic and -strong points of difference that exists between republican and despotic -forms of government, said Mr. S., consists in their greater or lesser -degree of haste in making or adopting laws. Where the will of a despot -is the only law, his simple volition is sufficient to call for the -prompt obedience of the subject; but in our happy government, the -numerous checks and balances it prescribes every where oppose -themselves to haste, to error, or inadvertency, in the formation of -laws. In acts of the smallest importance, we see daily that after they -have undergone every possible chance of fair and impartial discussion in -the House, they are transmitted to another, who equally proceed to -revise, correct, and amend them; and even this not being deemed -sufficient to secure, as it were, against all possibility of danger, -they are sent to the PRESIDENT, who has ten days to consider, and who -may return them with his objections. These we are bound respectfully to -inscribe on our journals; and if we disagree in opinion with the -PRESIDENT, the majority of two-thirds of both branches is requisite to -give validity to the law. Do not we discover in all this infinite -caution, and a wish rather not to act at all, by the difference of the -branches among each other, than to act imprudently or precipitantly; and -can we imagine that a constitution thus guarded with respect to laws of -little consequence, hath left without a check the immense power of -making Treaties, embracing, as in the instrument before us, all our -greatest interests, whether they may be of territory, of agriculture, -commerce, navigation, or manufacture, and this for an indefinite length -of time? No. By one of the guards of that constitution relative to -appropriations of money, this Treaty hath, in the last stage of its -progress, come before us; we have resolved according to our best -judgment of the constitution, and, as we have seen above, according to -the meaning and spirit of it, that we have a right to judge of the -expediency or inexpediency of carrying it into effect. This will depend -on its merits; and this is the discussion now before us. If, in the -event, we shall be found to differ in opinion with the other branches as -to this subject, it will involve no more animosity or crimination -against them than if we differed as to an ordinary law. To what purpose -then to sound the alarm, and to ring the tocsin from Georgia to New -Hampshire? Do we impeach the Executive? Do we charge bribery or -corruption? No, sir. - -These preliminary remarks I have thought essential, previously to going -into a consideration of the merits of the Treaty itself, which hath -already been so ably considered by the gentleman last up from Virginia, -(Mr. MADISON,) whose mildness of manner and suavity of address were -certainly calculated to inspire any thing else than the angry passions -so greatly deprecated by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. S. -LYMAN.) These, I hope, will be carefully avoided on all sides, and the -debate be concluded with the same good temper and moderation in which it -is begun. - -I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that the first point of view in which this -Treaty struck me with surprise was, the attitude Great Britain assumes -in it of dictating laws and usages of reception and conduct different -towards us, in every different parcel of her empire, while the surface -of our country is entirely laid open to her in one general and -advantageous point of admission. In Europe, we are told we may freely -enter her ports. In the West Indies, we were to sail in canoes of -seventy tons burden. In the East Indies we are not to settle or reside -without leave of the local government. In the seaports of Canada and -Nova Scotia, we are not to be admitted at all; while all our rivers and -countries are opened without the least reserve; yet surely our all was -as dear to us as the all of any other nation, and not to have been -parted with but on equivalent terms. - -But let us consider the articles distinctly:--first, as to the -Mississippi; Great Britain is admitted as freely to navigate on this -river, and to frequent the ports on its banks, as we are to go to those -on the Thames; yet, it is strange to remark, that, at the time we made -the stipulation, we had not ourselves obtained the right we gave. We -have since obtained it by Treaty with Spain, and on terms absolutely -contradictory to those contained in the British Treaty. - -The next of the permanent articles I shall notice, is that which -respects British debts. It is somewhat remarkable, that the -commissioners, who are to judge of these, are permitted the power of -adjournment from place to place--a very favorable stipulation for the -creditors, whilst the Commissioners on Spoliations, by article 7, are to -act only in London, whereby the American claimant must pass with his -papers, or send them across the Atlantic, and engage lawyers in a -country where law is unusually dear; a circumstance which will deter -many from applying at all, and occasion great loss to the United States. -I observe, too, that the awards of the Commissioners of British debts -are to be paid out of the treasury as awarded by the commissioners. I am -surprised not to find in the Report of the Secretary of State, on -appropriations to carry this Treaty into effect, some calculation as to -the probable amount of these debts, or some provision for lodging, for -this purpose, money in the treasury. Gentlemen would then have known the -extent to which they were going; but, at present, they can form no -judgment on the subject of the money wanted, or of the funds from whence -that money is to come. - -Much hath been said about the tenth article, relative to the -sequestration of debts. To be against the adoption of this article, hath -been supposed to imply an unwillingness to pay debts lawfully -contracted, and very copious abuse hath been thrown on the largest and -most populous State in this Union, as having for motive of its -opposition, this principle. To say nothing of the degrading nature of -such an admission, with respect to the honor of our own country, which -ought always to induce us to think the most favorably of it, is it true? -Is it true, that an unwillingness to pay debts hath been the principal -cause of opposition to this Treaty? Among the names opposed to it, are -to be found some as respectable for independence and fortune as any on -the Continent. To instance only one of a number, I may cite the -celebrated Pennsylvania farmer, John Dickenson, Esq., one of the richest -men in these parts of the country, attached to no party, living in great -retirement, with a name honorable for the most virtuous efforts in the -American Revolution. Can it be supposed that such a character as this is -influenced by such a motive? Surely not. Whence arises, then, the -opposition? It arises from a conviction that the admission of this -article is degrading to the national character. During a late session of -Congress an honorable member from New Jersey, (Mr. DAYTON, the present -Speaker) fired by a laudable indignation at the robberies committed on -our commerce by the British, moved for a provisional sequestration of -their property. No sooner was this done, than we saw a report from the -Secretary of the Treasury, dated the 16th of January, 1795, recommending -the United States to pass a permanent law against sequestration of -property in the funds. Congress not having acted on this part of the -report, though they adopted other parts, we now see the clause attempted -to be brought into a law by way of a Treaty. And it is more singular, -as, at the very time the article was agreed to in England, all the -European nations were actually sequestering the property of each other. - -After having thus reviewed the first ten or permanent articles, I think -it must appear obvious that the result is, that we have ceded the right -to navigate the Mississippi on terms different to those on which we -received it from Spain; that we have consented to receive the Western -posts on terms that afford too much danger of disturbances by a mixed -intercourse of our people, British subjects and Indians; that we have -provided, certainly, for an indefinite amount of British debts: whilst -our claim for spoliations is left to be decided by commissioners at -London, who meet without power of adjournment, and under very extensive -latitude of judging according to what may appear to them to be the law -of nations, in a country where that law his been twisted so as always to -serve as a pretext for spoliations against us; and we have agreed never, -in future, to consent to sequestrations, or confiscations, in case, by -war or national difference, our property afloat should be confiscated or -sequestered by Great Britain to any amount. Let any impartial mind, -then, judge of the expediency, on our part, of voting efficacy to so -ruinous a contract. - -I come now to consider the remaining articles of a more temporary -nature. The 12th article merits consideration, because, though not -included in the general arrangement as ratified, being only suspended, -its principles are not wholly abandoned, but left, like a cloud, still -to hang over us. This 12th article was intended to regulate our -intercourse with the British West Indies, and contemplated the singular -provision that we should only navigate thither in vessels of seventy -tons burden, whilst the British themselves might put in the employ -vessels of any size. How degrading such a stipulation, it is not -difficult to conceive! We supply these islands with what the inhabitants -have always acknowledged they could get so well nowhere else, and yet -our tonnage is to be thus restricted, while theirs is left open to -employ vessels of any description. But this is not all: for the sake of -getting admission into a few inconsiderable British ports in the West -Indies, we are to give up the carriage in our own shipping of cotton, -one of our own staple articles, and of sugar, coffee, and indigo, the -produce of the French, Spanish, Danish, Swedish, or Dutch islands. How -strange a mistake as to the geography of this Western Archipelago, in -which the carriage of the produce of St. Domingo alone is worth more -nearly than the entire admission to all the other islands put together! -The principle contained in this 12th article, thus suspended, ought to -have been utterly contradicted or annulled. While existing even in its -suspended form, it will prevent my voting for this Treaty, of whose -chains it is only an absent link. - -But we are told whatever may be our fate in the West, all our losses are -to be balanced in the East Indies; and we are carried from our own -neighborhood, to be sure, to a great distance, in order to have repaid -all our sacrifices. Let us examine this 13th article respecting the East -India trade, and see if it does not bear a very strict analogy to the -West India article that has been exploded. - -We are to be admitted, it is true, in vessels of any size, but not -suffered to settle or reside without leave of the local Government--that -is, of the British East India Company. Of all the despotisms in the -world that of a mercantile monopolizing company is the worst; yet into -such hands we are to fall, and from them to solicit leave to reside or -travel in the country. What security can there be for a commerce thus -precariously conducted, in which your rivals are your judge? - -The consumption of India goods being in a great degree out of the -question in England, the Company, who have an annual revenue of a -million and a half sterling to receive from their possessions in India, -have hitherto sold them at vendue in Leadenhall street; and I believe, -considering the credit our merchants usually obtained in London on those -goods, and the low price the Company sold them at, they could afford to -supply us cheaper in England than we could get them from India in time -of peace. I find the East India Company themselves state, in 1788, that -seventeen-twentieths of the calicoes imported by them were exported, and -twelve-twentieths of the muslins also exported, thereby realizing, as -they term it, the tribute which India pays to Great Britain through the -medium of its commerce. In 1793 the Company state the internal -consumption of India calicoes and muslins to be reduced in Britain to -almost nothing. They add, every shop offers British muslins for sale, -equal in appearance, and of more elegant patterns than those of India, -for one-fourth, or perhaps more than one-third less in price. They say -nine-tenths of all muslins and calicoes are sold for exportation. - -The 15th article is one of the most objectionable of the whole Treaty, -because it fundamentally contradicts all the provisions heretofore made -by our Government for the encouragement and protection of the navigation -of this country. By it it is settled that, so far as respects us, no -tonnage duties shall be laid on British vessels but what shall be laid -on those of all other nations; no duties on British articles but what -shall be laid on those of every other nation; no embargo to affect -Britain but what affects all other nations alike; American bottoms are -left exposed to be charged, in the European British ports, tonnage -duties equal to those laid on British bottoms here; countervailing -duties may be laid in England to equalize the difference of duties on -European or Asiatic goods imported here in British or American vessels; -and no additional difference in tonnage or duties of this kind is to be -made hereafter. - -These principles deserve to be separately examined. They virtually -repeal all the laws heretofore made as to navigation and impost, by -indirectly equalizing the tonnage and duties on the British and American -vessels; and they restrain, in future, the powers of Congress on some of -the most important regulations of foreign commerce that could come -before them. - -On a review, then, of the commercial articles, they may be summed up as -follows: West India trade left blank by the suspension of the 12th -article. East India trade subjected to a condition of residence, -rendering it precarious, and restricted to a landing of the goods -exported in the United States, not known to have ever been imposed in -any way similar, on any other nation trading to Bengal, while all -nations are constantly allowed an equal liberty of trading there with -ourselves. European, and both these trades, liable to an equalization of -tonnage and duties, that cannot but operate unfavorably to the American -navigation. Should the countervailing duties take place in the British -ports in Europe on American vessels, they will probably be shut out of -them altogether. In time of foreign war, our ships deprived of the -neutral rights of carrying allowed them by Treaty with France and Spain, -and exposed to be captured and detained on suspicion, as now daily -happens. Naval stores exposed to confiscation by England, when shipped, -at a time when she is at war, to the ports of her enemies. - -In all these instances our navigation is materially endangered and -exposed, without any equivalent advantages. May it not now well be -asked, Whence it comes that this interest of navigation hath become less -an object of care to us than at the time we passed the laws of duty and -impost on foreign ships and goods imported into them? I stated the other -day my ideas of the immense importance of navigation. Mr. Burke gave -the following opinion of a branch of it in 1775: - - "As to the wealth which the Colonies have drawn from the - sea by their fisheries, you had all that matter fully - opened at your bar. You surely thought those acquisitions - of value, for they seemed even to excite your envy; and yet - the spirit with which that enterprising employment has been - exercised, ought rather, in my opinion, to have raised your - esteem and admiration. And pray, sir, what in the world is - equal to it? Pass by the other parts, and look at the - manner in which the people of New England have of late - carried on the whale fishery. Whilst we follow them among - the tumbling mountains of ice, and behold them penetrating - into the deepest frozen recesses of Hudson's Bay and - Davis's Straits; whilst we are looking for them beneath the - Arctic Circle, we hear that they have pierced into the - opposite region of Polar cold, that they are at the - antipodes, and engaged under the frozen Serpent of South - Falkland Island, which, seeming too remote and romantic an - object for the grasp of national ambition, is but a stage - and resting place in the progress of their victorious - industry. Nor is the equinoctial heat more discouraging to - them than the accumulated winter of both the poles. We know - that whilst some of them draw the line and strike the - harpoon on the coast of Africa, others run the longitude, - and pursue their gigantic game along the coast of Brazil. - No sea but what is vexed by their fisheries, no climate - that is not witness to their toils. Neither the - perseverance of Holland, nor the activity of France, nor - the dexterous and firm sagacity of English enterprise, ever - carried this most perilous mode of hardy industry to the - extent to which it has been pushed by this recent people--a - people who are still, as it were, but in the gristle, and - not yet hardened into the bone of manhood. When I - contemplate those things, when I know that the Colonies in - general owe little or nothing to any care of ours, and that - they are not squeezed into this happy form by the - constraints of watchful and suspicious governments, but - that through a wise and salutary neglect a generous nature - has been suffered to take her own way to perfection--when I - reflect upon these effects, when I see how profitable they - have been to us, I feel all the pride of power sink, and - all presumption in the wisdom of human contrivance melt and - die away within me." - -Since then our navigation has had the growth of a man arrived at full -age, (twenty-one,) and become extended to an immense size; yet was it so -unprotected that, in this year, the United States wanting to remit, out -of some cargoes of sugar and coffee shipped on private account, money to -pay the interest of their debts in Holland, they were under the -necessity of asking passports for these cargoes of the French and -British Ministers, to let this property pass in safety over the -Atlantic; and I have seen it boasted in some of our papers, that orders -were issued by the British Government to their Port Admirals to respect -these passports thus given by their minister or agent here; so the -United States left their own merchants to carry their sugar and coffee -as they might, but obtained passes for ships, in the proceeds of whose -sales they were interested. What a strange circumstance, this! The -American Government sailing secure under passes--the private merchant -exposed! - -But it is asked, if this Treaty be so unfavorable to commerce, why are -the merchants so much in favor of it? - -They explain the reason themselves. They are influenced by the present -rather than future interests. Five millions of spoliations they look to -the Treaty to repay; their property afloat, they fear to be taken, and -war they dread; but is there really weight in these arguments? I am as -largely interested as any individual among them in shipping, and have -suffered the loss of one of my cargoes at Bermuda, for which my -underwriters have made me only a partial allowance; but I neither dread -any war on the part of England, situated as she now is, nor expect any -payment of my loss from the Treaty. To a nation to whom she offers -bounties to carry her provisions, and who is so excellent a customer for -her manufactures, she will not be easily induced to offer hostilities -that shall go to the extent of war; and the Commissioners on Spoliations -are to act in London merely as arbitrators of the law of nations, on -whom our claim of spoliations is at best but a very uncertain -dependence. The merchants in sundry parts of the United States having -thought it so, have claimed the interference of Congress in advancing -them the money, they rather doubted getting any where else. - -Considering, then, this Treaty as merely a bargain exhibiting little or -no profit and much to lose, I separate it from all considerations -foreign to itself. I judge it on its own merits, and these must lead me -to vote for the proposition to suspend appropriations, especially in a -moment when our seamen continue to be impressed and our ships to be -taken. - - -SATURDAY, April 16. - -_Execution of British Treaty._ - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union, and took up the resolution for carrying into effect -the Treaty with Great Britain. - -Mr. NICHOLAS said, he was sorry to find gentlemen unwilling to go into a -discussion of the merits of the Treaty, as he anticipated considerable -benefits to the community from a fair investigation. He did not know, as -had been said, that it could have no effect on the minds of members of -the House, but he thought it necessary that the people should be enabled -to form a just opinion of the merits of this compact, that neither -opposition nor their attachment, should go beyond just bounds; that fair -investigation was the most likely means of producing that calm in the -public mind which he wished to see produced whenever Government had -finally decided, and he would venture to say, there was no place which -could be resorted to for more sound information. - -In considering the merits of the Treaty itself, Mr. N. said, he would -consider the subjects which pressed themselves on the negotiator and -demanded provision. These were chiefly the disputes arising under the -Treaty of 1783, late depredations on our trade, and the settlement of -contested principles to guard us against future misunderstandings. - -The cases arising under the Treaty of 1783, as heretofore contested, -were negroes and other property carried away contrary to its -stipulations; the territorial claim under it, and on the part of Great -Britain, an interference in the recovery of private debts. - -Of the negroes, nothing is said in the present Treaty. It is to be -expected in negotiations, that some concessions are to be made for the -sake of accommodation, and this sacrifice of private interests becomes -sometimes unavoidable. This claim was of considerable importance to a -class of the citizens of the United States, but it was of still greater -importance, as it justified the United States from the charge of -breaking the Treaty of Peace. In this respect it was highly incumbent on -the negotiator to procure satisfaction. It will not be contended that it -should have been a _sine qua non_ in the negotiation, and it would not -now be mentioned, if it was not necessary to a fair estimate of some of -the stipulations of the Treaty, and if there had not been so uniform a -surrender of the interests of the United States as to compel a -calculation. It is now said, indeed, that the meaning of the Treaty of -1783 was mistaken, and that the engagement was only to refrain from -carrying away negroes, &c., which should be found in possession of the -inhabitants at the time peace should take place. It is not necessary now -to go into a construction of the words of the article, as its meaning -has certainly been fixed by the interpretation of the parties in the ten -years which elapsed after it. In all that time the United States have -asserted the claim, and it cannot be shown that Great Britain ever -contested the construction of the article. It is said, that one of the -Commissioners, (Mr. Adams,) who concluded the Treaty of 1783, in behalf -of the United States, informed the Senate, in their deliberations on -this Treaty, that it was the unquestionable meaning of the article, to -save all negroes and other property then in the hands of the British; -that the article was inserted after all other points had been settled at -the instance of Mr. Laurens, who just then arrived from his confinement -in London, and the reason assigned by him was, that many of the people -of the United States would be disabled from complying with the part of -the Treaty which respects debts unless this provision was made; that the -same gentleman, who was afterwards Ambassador from the United States to -the Court of London, also informed the Senate that, during his embassy, -this construction of the article was never denied, and that it seemed to -be understood by the Ministry, that, on a settlement with the United -States, compensation must be made. This subject was fully investigated -by the negotiator of the Treaty (Mr. Jay) while he was Secretary of -Foreign Affairs; all the reasons which now arm the friends of the -Treaty against this claim were examined by him, and then his decision -was, that we were entitled to compensation. The reputed author of the -best defence of the Treaty, (Mr. Hamilton,) in the year 1783, introduced -a resolution into Congress, declaring that the negroes, &c., had been -carried away by the British armies, contrary to the true intent and -meaning of the Treaty. Mr. N. thought it too late to extort a meaning -from a contract after it had existed more than ten years; and he did not -doubt every candid mind would be satisfied by the acquiescence of -Britain, and the evidence which he had produced of a perfect -understanding between the two countries on the subject. If the new -construction of the article could not be established, the first -infraction of the Treaty of 1783 remained indisputable. Before the -Treaty became binding, Great Britain, by carrying away the negroes, put -it out of her power to execute the contract which she had made, while, -on the part of the United States, no act had been done which was -inconsistent with the Treaty, provided the acts of the States did not -continue to operate after the ratifications were exchanged. - -Before he examined the cases provided for in this Treaty, it was -necessary to remark, that the Treaty declares its intention to be to -settle the disputes of the two countries without regard to former -criminations, and all the writers in favor of the Treaty, declare that -it was necessary to waive the first infraction of the former Treaty. -This was a proper principle, and he only asked that it should have been -pursued. This spirit of conciliation must have meant to put both parties -on the same footing, either by agreeing that neither party had been the -cause of the Treaty not being executed, or that both had been equally -guilty. He would examine whether either of these concessions had been -pursued. - -To obtain a surrender of the posts, and the territory withheld from us, -we have sanctioned the subsequent alienations of land by the King of -Great Britain. We have confirmed the claims of the inhabitants and -dispensed with their allegiance, by permitting them to remain subjects -of Great Britain; we have opened our frontier to all their citizens, and -permitted them to retain a share of the Indian trade. Mr. N. did not -pretend to judge of the commercial effect of the intercourse between the -frontiers, but he apprehended that, in another respect, this concession -would destroy the whole value of the acquisition. The traders would be -enabled to maintain their accustomed influence over the Indians, and -would have more inducements than when they had a monopoly of the trade -to embroil them with the United States. Formerly, they were interested -in their continuing in peace, as war prevented the acquisition of skins -and furs; but when American traders shall embark in the trade, they will -have an obvious interest in war as the certain means of banishing their -rivals. It appears, then, that the Treaty of 1783, in this respect, is -not revived--that there is a new contract with respect to the posts, -and much less will be obtained than if that Treaty had been executed. - -When the claims of Great Britain, under the Treaty of 1783, became the -subject of the present Treaty, the stipulations discover a different -principle. The United States give up the claim for negroes, and agree to -receive the posts on terms which greatly diminish their value; but, when -the debts due from citizens of the United States to subjects of Great -Britain are to be provided for, there is not a stipulation that they may -now be pursued without hindrance, but there is an engagement, on the -part of the United States, to pay all losses which have arisen from the -infraction of the Treaty of Peace, so far as it respects them. On what -ground could this assumption have been made? Why is this penalty imposed -on the United States? There can be but one justification, and that is, -that they had been guilty of the first infraction of the Treaty of -Peace, and must make amends; but there was to be no concession of this -kind, so that if damages were to be given at all, they should be given -on both sides. It seems clear, then, whatever pretences are made by the -Treaty or its advocates, that the first infraction of the Treaty of -Peace is fixed on the United States, and that they are to make -compensation for an injury. Where does the conciliating temper of Great -Britain manifest itself? Had she a claim under the Treaty of 1783, which -is forgotten? Does she not receive every thing which she could have -demanded in relation to that Treaty? The United States are to indemnify -her citizens completely for the non-execution at the time, and are to -receive less than was promised them without the least compensation for -the delay. But it is somewhere said, that the damages could not be -demanded for withholding the posts, because they could not be computed. -It will be agreed by those who press the acceptance of this Treaty in -order to obtain the posts, that they are important to the United States. -If of the consequence which they are represented to be, twelve years -dispossession must have been a real injury, and the claim on Great -Britain will be indisputable, although the amount may not be certain. -This might be a good pretext for evading a payment to the United States, -if this claim stood unconnected with any other; but it must be -considered as a very shameless suggestion to enforce the payment of -damages incurred by them. It is certainly a sufficient justification for -retaining what is in their hands until Great Britain shall offer -something on this account; otherwise she will be screened by her cunning -in causing the subject of injury. Again, it has been said that this -inequality in the Treaty was proper, because the right to recover debts -returned with the peace, and did not depend merely on the Treaty. It is -to be remembered, that the United States justify it as a retaliation for -breach on the part of Great Britain, and that, in forming this Treaty, -it was agreed to waive the right to retaliate: or, rather, the -question, who first infringed the Treaty. It is only to be inquired, -then, whether this was a proper subject of retaliation? and if it was, -the United States ought to escape all penalty for using it, or Great -Britain must be equally subject to compensation for her infractions. -(For this, see _Marten's_ Law of Nations, page 268, where it is said -that it matters not, in this respect, whether rights are innate, or -whether they have been acquired by express or tacit covenant, or -otherwise.) - -Another class of claims which may fall on the United States is still -more alarming--those for war-interest. The Treaty has explicitly -authorized the commissioners to judge of all claims of British subjects -lost by legal impediments, whether of principal or interest, and they -are to determine according to justice, equity, and the law of nations. -In the correspondence on this subject between the two Governments, the -right has been asserted and denied; and it will depend on the -commissioners to say whether war-interest is due or not; and it being to -be supposed that the commissioners will advocate the principles of their -respective Governments, the United States are to depend on the chance -election of the fifth commissioner for safety. If it shall be determined -that it is due, the mischief will be insufferable. It will not merely be -recovered in those cases where the principal is unpaid, nor will it be -confined to those cases where it has been lost by actual judgment of a -court, but will extend to all cases of private settlement, where the -decision of the Judiciary of the State had previously settled the -principle. - -It appears, then, that on the subject of the disputes arising under the -Treaty of 1783, there is no cause for congratulation. The claims for -negroes carried off are abandoned; the posts are to be delivered up, on -terms not unusual and dishonorable, but extremely dangerous to the -future peace of the United States, and to obtain them in this manner we -incur an obligation to pay a sum which probably will not fall short of -five millions of dollars, and which may possibly amount to fifteen -millions. When it is remembered that these claims commenced with our -independence, and that they were the concessions to our infant -struggles, what American is there who will not feel the disgrace to our -manhood in abandoning them? All must blush at a comparison of the Treaty -we obtained with our arms, with that which has been dictated by fear. - -The next subject which claimed the attention of a negotiator was the -injury recently sustained in the commerce of the United States; and on -this subject it will be proper to review the circumstances in which the -negotiator left this country. The losses sustained had been considered -here as outrages of so serious a nature that all parties had concurred -in demanding reparation; some had attempted at once to use coercion, and -those who approved the mission declared that war must follow a failure. -In this situation, where the sense of Government and people was -decided, and where the injury was not only intolerable in itself but was -likely to be repeated, it seems astonishing that a man could be found -who would conclude a Treaty which gives to the United States no -compensation, but more astonishing that partisans could be found here -who approved his conduct. It may be asserted that no compensation is -secured by the Treaty, and that under its operation it is equally -probable that none will be received. See the article. It has been -doubted, and is, perhaps, very doubtful, whether the Courts of Great -Britain are not made the judges of irregular and illegal captures and -condemnations, and whether the orders of the King are not admitted as -good cause of seizure; but it never has been contended that compensation -is promised in any particular case, or that any principles are -established by the Treaty which are to govern the commissioners. In the -construction of their powers, insisted on by the advocates of the -Treaty, their guides are justice, equity, and the laws of nations. -Nobody can complain of these principles, if their fair operation was -secured; but a moment's attention will show that this was nothing but an -evasion of the subject. - -It will not be understood that I suppose it was in Mr. Jay's power to -make his own terms, but I complain of his treating at all on the terms -he did. It is said that it was not in his power to extort what he -wished, but I complain that he yielded to the extortion of Great -Britain. What has he left her to ask, what has he not surrendered? While -professing, as the Treaty does, that there were important points of our -commerce left for future negotiation, why bind us to continue to Great -Britain the fullest share of our commercial privileges? If the Treaty -had been the most complete and satisfactory, would it not be necessary -to leave something to enforce its execution? What weapons have we which -can reach her? The Treaty makes war indispensable, as the only redress -of injuries, and how will war from the United States reach Great -Britain? It was certainly improper to give up all power of restricting -her commerce until the same instrument contained the fullest -satisfaction as to our own. It was improper to give up all the power of -seizing on the debts of her subjects, for this, when the power of -restricting her commerce was bartered for equal privileges, would be the -only means of maintaining respect. It is not necessary that weapons of -any sort should be used, but it is more dangerous to surrender them. I -am no friend to interference in private contracts, and I can truly say, -I never was willing to resort to this remedy till all others had been -tried; but if there was an impossibility of doing it, the want of the -power would immediately be felt. The impolicy and immorality of -sequestration have been dwelt on. Contrast it with war, for which it is -a substitute, and it will be found in both respects unequal to it. All -national remedies are attended with great mischiefs to those who use -them, and they must be adopted only on comparison in this respect, and -with regard to their effects on the enemy. In this last respect there -seems to be no choice to the United States; they have no other weapon -that can reach Great Britain, and I greatly fear that, when this is -lost, we are completely disarmed. - - -MONDAY, April 18. - -_Treaty with Great Britain._ - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union; when the resolution for carrying the British Treaty -into effect being under consideration-- - -Mr. GILES said it was much to be regretted that all the information -which could throw light upon the subject of discussion should not be -before the committee. A sense of responsibility arising from the -peculiarly delicate nature of the question had induced the House to take -every step with more than a common degree of caution. Before they -proceeded to deliberate upon the expediency or inexpediency of providing -for carrying the Treaty into effect, they made a request to the -PRESIDENT for the papers which attended the negotiation. This request -has been refused; not because the call itself contained any thing -unconstitutional; not because the contents of the papers called for were -of such a nature as to render the disclosure thereof at this time -improper. Neither of these causes being intimated in the Message, but -because principles were advocated by individual gentlemen in the course -of the argument inducing the call which the PRESIDENT thought not -warranted by the constitution. Mr. G. said, he did not propose to -animadvert upon the conduct of the Executive in departing from the -resolution itself, and in noticing the arguments of individual members, -nor upon any other part of the proceedings of the Executive relative to -the call of the House and his refusal. He only meant to remark, that -being perfectly convinced of the propriety of the call itself, of the -utility of the information embraced by it, and not being satisfied by -the arguments of the PRESIDENT of the propriety of withholding the -papers called for, he should have been willing to have suspended all -further proceeding respecting the provision for the Treaty, until the -papers should be laid before the House. He would have firmly placed -himself on that ground, and in that position hazarded his -responsibility. The extreme sensibility excited on the public mind by -the agitation of the Treaty question, he had supposed, would have -furnished an irresistible argument in favor of complying with the -request of the House, provided no inconvenience would have attended the -disclosure; and in his opinion, under all the circumstances of the case, -the House would have been completely justified in suspending all further -proceeding upon the question of providing for the Treaty, until they -received that information which they deemed necessary to guide their -deliberations. But as the House had thought proper to take a different -course, and had proceeded to the consideration of the question, with -such lights as they possessed, he would explain the motives which would -probably finally influence his vote. - -Mr. G. said he should discuss the subject in two points of view. He -would first examine the contents of the Treaty itself, and then the -probable consequences of refusing or of giving it efficacy. - -In examining the contents of the instrument itself, he proposed to go -through it article by article, unless the task prescribed to himself -should exceed the bounds usually allowed to members for the delivery of -their sentiments. He should do this, because he wished to treat the -subject with the utmost candor, and to avoid any possible imputation of -intending to exhibit the bad and avoid the good parts of the Treaty, if -any such there were. He meant, however, to state merely the purport of -many of the articles, without any animadversion, and to dwell only upon -such as appeared to him the most material. - -The first object of the negotiation respected the inexecution of the -Treaty of Peace. - -On the part of Great Britain, two articles had been unexecuted: The -restoration of certain property in possession of the British at the -close of the war, and the surrender of the Western posts. On the part of -the United States, one article was suggested to remain unfulfilled; it -respected the promise that no legal impediment should be thrown in the -way to the recovery of debts due to British subjects. - -The claim of compensation for the property carried away in contravention -of the Treaty of Peace is wholly abandoned, and the value of the -surrender of the posts very much lessened by the annexation of -conditions which made no part of the stipulations of surrender in the -Treaty of Peace. The United States are more than bound to fulfil the -article heretofore unfulfilled by them; for instead of continuing the -courts open for the recovery of debts in the usual way, as was the -promise in the Treaty of Peace, they are made to assume the payment of -all debts, interests, and damages in cases of insolvencies, and a mode -of adjustment is proposed for ascertaining the amount which furnishes -the greatest latitude for frauds against the United States which could -be devised. This will appear in the future examination of the subject. -Hence it is obvious that the stipulations of the Treaty abandoned the -very principle of adjustment assumed by a gentleman from Connecticut -(Mr. SWIFT.) - -Mr. G. would first premise, that if the article did not intend the -restoration of property mentioned in it, the insertion of it in the -Treaty was not only unnecessary, but mischievous, as it would -necessarily produce embarrassment to the parties to the instrument. - -The British army, at the termination of the war, was at New York; the -negroes, which constituted the species of property in question, were in -the Southern States; so that if the article did not include that species -of property taken in the course of the war, and in the possession of the -British at the end of it, it was worse than nonsense. It never could -have been supposed that, upon the first dawn of peace, the British -would have left New York and invaded the Southern country, for the -purpose of plundering the inhabitants of their negroes. The peace -article itself was a sufficient security against this conduct, and of -course no specific provision could have been necessary for that purpose. -This was not only the uniform construction of the article by the United -States, but, as he always understood and believed, Great Britain had -acquiesced in the construction until the negotiation of the present -Treaty. As an evidence of these facts, Mr. G. observed, that American -commissioners were permitted to make a list of the negroes in the -possession of the British at the close of the war by the British -commander; that the list was entered upon the files of Congress; that -there were resolutions of Congress claiming compensation for the -property carried away in contravention of that article in the Treaty of -Peace, perhaps without even the intimation of a doubt as to the -construction; that, during the administration of Lord Caermarthen, he -had always understood that the claim of compensation for property -carried away, was admitted, whenever British subjects were indemnified -for the debts due to them from citizens of the United States. But here -he had to regret the want of the papers called for by this House, as -they contained all the evidence upon which this important fact depends. -Hence it appears that Great Britain herself had yielded her assent to -this construction, and ought not to have been permitted to have -withdrawn it afterwards. These circumstances seemed to him to be -conclusive, and ingenuity itself would pause for arguments against facts -so stubborn and irresistible. - -Mr. G. then proceeded to the examination of the articles of the Treaty. -The first article, he said, was declaratory of peace, &c., between the -two countries, which, he said, was a very desirable thing, provided it -could be established upon principles compatible with the national honor -and the national interests. The second and third articles contained the -stipulations for the surrender of the Western posts, and the conditions -accompanying the surrender. - -The surrender of the Western posts, he said, would be an extremely -desirable object, if conformable with the Treaty of Peace, and it were -unattended with any conditions. - -Here, he said, he was desirous of giving credit to every part of the -instrument which would admit of it, and was not disposed to exaggerate -its imperfections. He was willing to admit that the surrender of the -posts, even with the conditions annexed, was of some importance; but he -would assert that the surrender lost a great portion of its value to the -United States, in consequence of the conditions attached to it. He -observed, two objects of primary importance were to be effected by the -unqualified surrender of the posts. The one was to obtain the influence -over the Indians in their neighborhood, which the British now possessed. -The other, the participation, at least, in the fur trade carried on -with those Indians. The conditions accompanying the surrender, will, in -his opinion, very much impede the one, and completely defeat the other -object. - -The stipulation in the second article, which authorizes British subjects -who are now living within the precincts or jurisdiction of the posts, -still to continue and to reside there, with the free use of their -property; and to elect either to remain British subjects or to become -American citizens at pleasure, will, in his opinion, very much impede, -if not wholly obstruct, the salutary influence of the United States over -the numerous tribes of Indians in that quarter; which is one great -object hoped for from the possession of those posts. The effects of the -stipulation will appear more obvious, when it is compared with the -stipulations in the next article, by which the trade with the Indians is -regulated. The second object, to wit, the participation in the fur -trade, he believed, would be completely defeated by the regulation of -that trade in the third article; that article stipulates an equality of -duties between American citizens and British subjects, a free -communication through that country, upon an equality of portages and -ferriages. These conditions, in his opinion, would secure a complete -monopoly of the fur trade to Great Britain; because the superiority of -the British capital employed in that trade, and the inferiority of -duties paid upon goods imported for that trade into Canada, would, in -his judgment, wholly exclude American citizens from a participation in -that trade, through any channel in the United States. The United States -had no mode left to counteract this monopoly but by a system of -drawbacks, which appeared to him, from the nature and trade of the -country, to be almost impracticable; or if not absolutely impracticable, -it would compel us to purchase the trade at a price greater than it was -worth. It appeared to him that Great Britain had foreseen these -consequences, and that these articles are as well calculated to produce -them, and to obstruct the views of the United States, as sagacity itself -could have devised. Hence it appears to him that the value of an -unqualified surrender of the posts is very much lessened by the -accompanying conditions. The gentleman from Connecticut observed, that -the surrender of the posts was absolute, and that no conditions were -annexed to it. It is a sufficient answer to say that his observation is -a mere criticism upon terms. If they be not conditions of the surrender, -they are accompanying engagements, and are to be executed with good -faith by the United States. - -The sixth article was, in his judgment, highly objectionable. This -article assumes the payment of all debts, interests, and damages, due -from American citizens to British subjects, previous to the Revolution, -in all cases where insolvencies have ensued, and where legal impediments -to the recovery of the debts have existed. He would remark, that this -was an assumption of debt by the public, which they did not owe, and -never promised to pay, and that it is bettering the condition of the -British creditor under the Treaty of Peace, without any obligation on -the United States to do so. He said that, as, amongst the fashionable -calumnies of the day, this article had been a fertile source of -misrepresentation against the State he had the honor to represent, he -was anxious to place this subject in its true light; and, as he -professed to be well acquainted with it, he hoped to be indulged with -some minutiæ of explanation. He said, this subject presented two aspects -to the public; the one, as it respected States, the other, as it -respected individuals of the United States. As to the first, he admitted -that if a greater proportion of debts of this description were due from -Virginia than from other States, which had not, however, been -ascertained, and which he doubted, in the same proportion, as a State, -Virginia would receive an advantage over the rest of the States, by a -common assumption of the debts; but as it respected the individuals in -that State who were not debtors, they stood precisely on the same -footing with individuals in other States, because they were, in common -with others, to contribute to the payment of debts which they never -owed. It is of very little consolation to them that they live in the -neighborhood of those whose debts they are to contribute to pay; for -propinquity or distance can make no difference in the state of interest -between the individuals who do not owe, but who are to contribute to -pay. As a very small proportion of the inhabitants of Virginia come -under this description of debtors, the phenomenon of an opposition of -that State, to this particular article, is thus explained. - -It is to be remarked, that this article contains no limits as to the -amount of debts assumed by it, nor are there any precise data furnished -for calculation. But it has been said, that if the debts be due, they -ought to be paid, be the amount what it may. He said, that gentlemen -should reflect, that the amount would depend very much upon the mode of -adjustment, and that the mode adopted by the Treaty was the most -objectionable that could be devised. - -He observed, that the principle established for the adjustment of the -debts, instead of preserving the conflicting interests of debtor and -creditor, would produce a complete union of interests; and of course -would furnish the greatest temptations to frauds against the United -States from both debtor and creditor. Hence the amount of debts assumed -by the United States would probably be greatly increased beyond what -would be the amount, if the debtor and creditor should be left to the -ordinary course of judicial proceedings to adjust their own differences, -under the principle of opposing interests. To entitle the creditor to a -claim upon the United States, it is necessary for him first to establish -his demand against his debtor, and then to show that his debtor was -solvent at the commencement of the late war, and has since become -insolvent; and that some legal impediment had intervened to prevent the -recovery of the debt. Hence it becomes the interest of both debtor and -creditor to establish these facts, because the debtor will be relieved -from his debt, by the assumption of the United States, and the claim of -the creditor will be transferred from the individual to the United -States, which he would, in all cases, prefer, particularly as the -assistance of the debtor will often become necessary to facilitate the -establishment of the debt. This, he said, was the natural operation of -the union of interest produced by the assumption of the debts by the -United States, and there was more danger to be apprehended from it, from -the impossibility of checking it, by any vigilance on the part of the -United States, and from the peculiar circumstances attending those -debts. - -The greatest proportion of debts remaining unpaid, he believed, stood -upon open accounts. In many cases, when the debts were evidenced by -specialties, payments had been obtained, either by the usual course of -judicial process, or by compromise between the parties. There were two -circumstances attending the open accounts which would give great scope -to the fraudulent combinations between the debtor and creditor. The one -respected the evidence, the other the substantial causes of difference -in the accounts of the creditor and debtor. In the reign of George II. -an act was passed for the more easy recovery of debts due to His -Majesty's subjects from His Majesty's plantations in America. This act -authorized the merchant in Great Britain to establish his debt against a -colonist by affidavits taken before the commencement of the suit, and -authenticated in the usual mode. This deprived the defendant of all -opportunity of cross-examination, so essential to the discovery of -truth, and the jury of all knowledge of the character and credibility of -the deponent. - -In Virginia, the affidavits taken in pursuance of this act, have been -deemed incompetent to the establishment of the debt, because the act -itself destroys the very nature and properties of evidence. Hence, in -all disputed claims founded upon this act, judgments have been rendered -for the defendants. If this should be deemed a legal impediment to the -recovery, this whole description of debts would probably come under the -description of debts assumed. He observed, that the words used in the -Treaty were calculated, in his opinion, with a view to this -construction, and must have been dictated by persons better informed of -the nature of this business than he presumed the Envoy Extraordinary of -the United States could have been. - -The other circumstances arose from the nature of the remittances. These -were generally made in tobacco. The sales of this article were intrusted -solely to the merchant residing in Great Britain, and the American -shipper had no check whatever upon the merchant making the sale. Upon -tendering these accounts, the tobacco is often set down at a price very -inferior to the average price of that article in Europe, at the time of -making the sale. A great number of controversies have taken place upon -this ground, which remain unsettled; but, if the United States should -assume the debts of the individuals thus circumstanced, they would have -no inducement to contest these accounts in a course of judicial -proceedings, and the promise of exoneration from the creditor, will -often induce the debtor to facilitate the establishment of the claims -against the United States. He said he had not overlooked the clause in -this article of the Treaty, which compels an assignment of the claim -from the creditor to the United States, but that would have little or no -operation to check the practice invited by this article, because the -debtor is presumed to be insolvent before the assignment is made, and he -believed the United States would be but unsuccessful collectors from -insolvent debtors. - -From these circumstances, he concluded, that this assumption of debt, -without any obligation for so doing, was extremely improper, -particularly when it is recollected that this article sweeps away all -acts of limitation, and relates to the whole extensive scene of business -carried on in the United States, from the extremes of New Hampshire to -the extremes of Georgia, for an unlimited time before the Revolution. He -observed, if he were to make a conjecture as to the amount, it would be -a loose one; but if he were to choose between indemnification to the -American merchants for recent spoliations committed upon their commerce, -or the payment of these debts, he should not hesitate to prefer the -first alternative; because, to that there were known limits; to the -other there were not, nor any data for calculation under the mode of -adjustment prescribed by the Treaty. He, therefore, cautioned gentlemen -against the assumption of this unascertained debt, for he believed it -would be attended with a responsibility which they could not answer to -their constituents, nor would the responsibility be alleviated by the -recollection of the merits of the individuals for whose benefit it is -made. The increase of the debt of the United States by these artificial -means, without any obligation to do so, he thought highly objectionable. - -The 10th article, he said, was of a very extraordinary complexion. It -was remarkable, both as to the matter it contained, and the manner in -which it was expressed. It is in the following words: - - "Neither the debts due from individuals of the one nation - to individuals of the other, nor shares, nor moneys which - they may have in the public funds, or in the public or - private banks, shall ever in any event of war, or national - differences, be sequestered or confiscated, it being unjust - and impolitic that debts and engagements contracted and - made by individuals having confidence in each other and in - their respective Governments, should ever be destroyed or - impaired by national authority on account of the national - differences and discontents." - -Mr. G. remarked, that this article also had assumed the resemblance of -reciprocity; but no reciprocity in fact. - -British subjects have great sums, both in public and private funds, in -the United States. American citizens have little or no property in -public or private funds in Great Britain. Hence the evident and -substantial inequality of this reciprocal stipulation. On the other -hand, American citizens have a great share of property on the water, -with very little naval protection, and of course subject to the naval -superiority of Great Britain. - -If, therefore, Great Britain had stipulated, in case of war, that in -consideration of a refusal on the part of the United States, to -sequestrate property of British subjects upon land, she would not molest -the property of American citizens upon water, there would then have been -a substantial, instead of a nominal reciprocity; as the article now -stands there is an important right conceded, and no compensation -obtained. - -This article, however, has been highly applauded by a particular -description of persons interested in it, in consequence of the -affectation of morality professed by it. - -It has been said to be dishonest and immoral to take the property of -individuals for the purpose of compensating national wrongs. He -observed, that he could see no difference between the morality of taking -the property of individuals upon water, and the property of individuals -upon land. The difference of the element could make no difference in the -morality of the act. However strongly, therefore, this moral impulse was -operating upon the American Envoy whilst engaged in the construction of -this article, it had entirely dissipated before he had arrived at the -25th article; for, in that article, the principle of privateering is not -only admitted, but its operation facilitated; so that, unless the -interest of Great Britain is to be the criterion of the Envoy's -morality, what he has gained by the morality of the 10th article must be -at least balanced by the immorality of the 25th. But, Mr. G. remarked, -that sequestration was always admitted as part of the law of nations, -and hence he presumed it was not immoral under certain circumstances. He -said it appeared to be the opinion of some, that where the property of -an individual was sequestered on account of the act of his nation, that -the individual was to sustain the loss, but that was not the case. The -sequestration itself imposes upon the government, to which the -individual belongs, an obligation of reimbursement. Hence the -sequestration does not ultimately rest upon the individual, but upon the -Government, for whose wrong the property was taken. This is also -conformable to the laws of nations. It was the course pursued by Great -Britain for all sequestrations made during the American war, and is the -course which would be pursued by all nations. - -Mr. G. said, that war itself was immoral in most cases; and justified, -in his opinion, only in the case of self-defence; but if a stipulation -had been inserted in this Treaty, which prohibited the United States -from declaring war, it would have been justly and universally -reprobated. The present article prohibits the United States from -resorting to the best means not only of preventing war, but the most -efficacious means of supporting it. Hence, the surrender of the right -was the most impolitic concession, and is infinitely aggravated by its -being a voluntary concession; no equivalent being received in return. -Mr. G. said, it was dishonorable to the United States because it -evidenced a want of confidence in the discretion of the constituted -authorities. The right of sequestration is admitted to be essential to -national sovereignty; but, lest it should be indiscreetly used by the -United States, its guardianship is transferred to Great Britain. Mr. G. -said, he viewed sequestration as an extraordinary remedy, to be resorted -to only on extraordinary occasions. And although he would admit that but -few cases would justify a resort to it, yet it was one of our best -instruments of defence, considering our relationship to Great Britain, -and ought not therefore to have been surrendered. He said, too, that -this restraint was imposed upon the United States for an unlimited time, -and was the more objectionable, as it was a species of legislation -against the discretion of legislation. - -Upon the whole, he conscientiously believed the Treaty to be a bad one. -He believed it contained the most complete evidence of British -interference in our internal affairs, and had laid the foundation for -the further extension of British influence. It has restricted the -exercise of some of the important rights of national sovereignty. It has -voluntarily hazarded the neutrality of the United States in the present -European war, and destroyed all pretensions to its character of -impartiality. It has not afforded protection to our neutral rights, -which was amongst its great objects; and in the adjustment of the -differences resulting from the inexecution of the Treaty of Peace, it is -unequal and unjust. All these important circumstances considered, and -when it is also considered that the British persevere in impressing our -seamen and seizing our vessels, in violation of the clearest rights of -neutral nations, even since the signing of the Treaty, he could not -consent to be the instrument of giving it efficacy. He believed that it -was one of those extraordinary cases which justified strong and -extraordinary resistance. - -When Mr. GILES had concluded his speech, - -Mr. GOODHUE addressed the Chair as follows: Mr. Chairman: Much noise has -been made, and every art has been practised to prejudice the people -against the Treaty now under consideration. I mean to look at it and see -if it be the horrid thing it is represented to be, and particularly to -examine the commercial part, to know whether we have made a good bargain -or not, I will take notice of some objections that have been made, and -then touch on the great evils that may justly be apprehended, if we -refuse to carry it into effect. And here let me observe, the subject is -the most momentous that ever came before this House, and I mean to put -no false colors on it, or to paint any evils that will follow a -rejection, beyond what, in such an event, I most conscientiously believe -will be realized. I will now state what new sources of commerce are -opened to us by the Treaty that we had not before, and then see what we -have given for them. 1st. We have got by the Treaty a perfectly free -trade across the land, and by means of the lakes with Canada, that we -had not before, and on the same terms with British subjects, which I -estimate as a great advantage to this country; for it is evident, that -we can introduce into Canada--up the North river and across the -Lakes--almost any kind of goods, at less expense and on better terms -than the British can up the river St. Lawrence, which is very lengthy, -and frozen up six or seven months in the year. Having this advantage, -can it be doubted that we have not industry and enterprise to improve -it? No, sir, the enterprise of our people is such, that we shall -unquestionably carry on almost all the trade of Upper Canada, and that -great Western country which will be opened to us; by which means we -shall have at least an equal share in their fur trade also with them, -which we have so long wanted. But it is said, the portages or carrying -places being common to both, they will run away with the greater part of -the trade. Why so? I am not afraid but the citizens of the United -States, if they are put on an equal footing with others, will make their -way equal with any people on earth. But it is said, by way of lessening -the advantages of this trade, that goods imported into Canada pay little -or no duty, and the goods that we import are by our laws subject to high -duty, and that no drawback of the duty can be established upon their -being sent into Canada, and therefore, we cannot supply them on equal -terms. To this, I reply, that I do not know what duty they impose on -goods when imported into Canada, but I believe it is considerable; and I -do not believe but it is possible to devise a plan for a drawback of the -duty which may have been paid on our goods when they are sent into -Canada, and that at any rate the ease by which we can send them there up -the North river, compared with their being introduced by the St. -Lawrence, will more than compensate for any difference of duty, in case -a drawback should not be admitted. - -2. We have got established by the Treaty, a right to trade with all -their settlements in India on the same terms with their own subjects, -and thus we have laid open to us a free trade with those vast -possessions of theirs in that quarter of the globe, which, it is said, -contains twenty or thirty millions of inhabitants. Let me inform the -committee, that our trade to India is already very great and profitable. -In the town of Salem only, in which I live, we have thirty sail of -Indiamen, and doubtless, in the United States, the whole amount must be -nearly a hundred; and the number will increase in such a manner, as by -our superior enterprise, industry and economy, that we shall not only -supply our own wants, but those of the West Indies and Europe, in a -great measure, with India articles; for though, by the Treaty which -gives us this free trade, we are not permitted to carry India goods from -their settlements directly to Europe, yet there is no doubt, in my mind, -but we can export from hence thither cheaper than they can get them any -other way, for this obvious reason, because their trade to India is -carried on by their companies, in which despatch and economy is by no -means so much attended to, as it is when managed by an individual. But -it is said we had this trade before the Treaty. I answer, it is true we -had, but it was only by way of indulgence, subject to be deprived of it -whenever they thought fit; and let me ask, is it not vastly better to -have it secured as a right, than to have it rest on the precarious -tenure of indulgence? Here, Mr. Chairman, let me remark, that they have -granted to us this free trade to India, which their own subjects (except -the India Company) are entirely shut out from. What must be the feelings -of British subjects when they see their Government has given to -strangers a perfect freedom of trade to their India settlements, and -shut them out from it altogether? And what must be their astonishment -when they hear that some people amongst us think that Great Britain has -conferred no favor upon us by doing it? Hear what the famous Mr. -Grattan, the great Irish patriot, said in the Irish Parliament, on the -subject: - - "This very America, which the British Minister insulted and - then crouched to, had, by the late Treaty of Commerce, been - admitted to all the British settlements in the East and - West Indies, to the latter of which Ireland was only - conditionally admitted, and from the former unconditionally - excluded; yet Ireland was a loyal, attached nation, and - America an alien." - -These are the commercial acquisitions we have obtained by the Treaty; -and let me ask, what have we given to Britain in return for them? I -answer, nothing more than they have all along enjoyed in our ports, by -the laws of the United States, in common with other foreign nations. No -new commercial advantages have we given them; they can come here now on -no better terms than before. But, it is said, we have tied our hands by -the Treaty, that we will not lay any greater duties on their commerce -than we do on all other foreign nations. Pray, let me ask, if Great -Britain have not equally tied their hands? And can we be so unreasonable -as to suppose that they would ever consent to a Treaty that had not such -terms of reciprocity? - -It is again said, by way of objection, that they have reserved to -themselves the right of countervailing the difference of duty, which we, -by our laws, have established between our own citizens and foreigners, -and that she will now exercise that right by imposing equal duties on -our vessels in the ports of Great Britain. Let me answer this objection -to the Treaty, by asking if she had not this same right, and even an -unlimited one, of imposing what duties she saw proper on our vessels in -her ports before the Treaty? She did not see fit to exercise it then, -neither is it probable she will now. And, lest it should be said she -will now do it, because we are restrained by the Treaty from increasing -the duty on her ships beyond what it now is, and, therefore, she has not -the same fear operating to prevent it that she had before, let me -remark, that if she was restrained by any such considerations, this same -restraint would be in force again in two years after the present war -ceased, being the period of the existence of those articles of the -Treaty--a time so short as to render it highly probable she will not -think it worth while to make the experiment. - -A great cry has been made against the commercial part of the Treaty, and -I must confess I never could see on what ground, for it is a certain -fact we have given Great Britain no new privileges in our Atlantic ports -by the Treaty, and no other in their intercourse by the way of Canada, -than they have given us; and, therefore, it may fairly be said that, by -the Treaty, we have given them no new commercial privileges they were -not before enjoying in our ports; and they, on their part, have given us -considerable; and consequently, on our side, the bargain must be a good -one. - -Let me ask, why there is for ever so much complaint against Great -Britain because she does not open all her colonies freely to us? Does -Portugal open the Brazils? No; she shuts out all foreigners. Did -Holland, before the present war, open to us all her rich possessions in -the East Indies? No. Does Spain open her rich islands in the East and -West Indies, and her immense possessions in South America? No. Does she, -in the Treaty lately made, open even Florida, as Great Britain has -Canada? No. Did France before this war give us free trade to her -colonies? No. And do not all those nations, as well as every other, come -into our ports on the same terms with the British? Why, then, make this -rant about the British? Let them fare as well in our ports as other -foreigners, inasmuch as they certainly grant as much to us as most -others do, is all I contend for. I do not wish they should fare better. - -The impressment of our seamen by the British is made use of as an -objection to our carrying the Treaty into effect. It is, to be sure, a -mortifying circumstance, and must excite our utmost detestation of such -conduct. But let not our passions get the better of our judgment. We -have no kind of evidence that such conduct is countenanced by their -Admiralty, but the evidence we have is of a contrary nature, for, upon -our Minister's remonstrating to the British Ministry on this point, they -assured him that orders had been issued, and should be repeated to the -commanders of their ships, not to commit such violences on our rights, -at the same time observing, that, speaking the same language as we do, -it was difficult in all cases to distinguish their seamen from ours. In -this situation let us believe that a firm and spirited remonstrance will -be made by our Executive against such outrages; and let us hope that it -may have the desired effect. But, let me ask, if the Treaty should not -be carried into effect, will that relieve that deserving class of our -citizens? Will it not have probably a contrary effect, and be the means -of increasing the evil tenfold more than it exists at present? - - -TUESDAY, April 19. - -_Execution of British Treaty._ - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union, on the motion for making provision for carrying into -effect the Treaty with Great Britain; when - -Mr. HEATH rose and addressed the Chair as follows: - -Mr. Chairman: In the discussion of this so momentous and important a -subject, and so big at the same time with the dearest interests of our -common country, I shall not attempt any critical analysis upon the good -and bad parts of the instrument, as the gentlemen preceding me in this -debate have already done, but only confine myself to a few remarks, to -justify my conduct to God and my country for the vote I shall give in -the ultimate decision of the question. Mr. Chairman, permit me here to -remark, that during the recess of the last Congress, when the American -mind was roused with so much irritation and sensibility through all -parts of the Union against this paper, after its first appearance in -public print, I was one of those who kept aloof from the storm, -suspended my opinion, became of no party, considering myself hereafter -bound to discharge the important duties of an American Representative on -the occasion. And now since the commencement of the present session, -though two-thirds of my time overwhelmed with disease, and daily -languishing in the bed of pain, even under such a dreadful personal -calamity, my reflections were not turned aside from the awfulness of the -subject before us; which before and during this discussion, I confess, -as often as I have revolved in my mind, with a review of the situation -of my country, I have frequently paused, not knowing the best expedient -to pursue to avoid impending evils. - -Mr. Chairman, I have strange forebodings on this occasion. By the second -and third articles of the instrument before you, in the surrender of the -posts, British subjects have a right to reside with us; Indians have a -right to pass and repass from post to post from our district to their -portages and ferriages free, all in the vicinity within gun-shot. Will -not their traders continue their old acquaintanceship with them in -spite of us? Are not their capitals for trade larger than ours? Where, -then, are the real profits anticipated? All visionary, like the beggar's -dream, grasping mountains of gold, and when the morning sun shakes off -his slumber, it dissipates the delusion. But time will make more -converts than reason. Further, before I quit this subject of inequality, -I wish to remark, by way of reply to my much respected friend from -Connecticut, who was up a few days ago, in language nearly similar, and -the same sort of ingenuity of a celebrated champion, who has dedicated -much labor in favor of this instrument, under the signature of -_Camillus_, that Great Britain had never violated the seventh article of -the Treaty of Peace in not restoring the slaves and other property; that -they were taken in war, and their freedom offered to them by the British -commanders, and were not taken after a cessation of hostilities; and, -therefore, were not proper objects of surrender. Oh, the deceit, the -sophistry of this construction! I shall just answer it by reading from -the Journals of the old Congress what the real _Camillus_, or, in other -words, the learned Mr. HAMILTON, thought of that article at that time. -He read the Journals of 1783, where Mr. HAMILTON moved in Congress for -commissioners to be sent to New York to the British commander to request -an explanation respecting an infraction of that article. So was Mr. -HAMILTON's opinion at that time, so was the prevalent opinion of all -America at that time. My second point, the want of reciprocity in the -instrument, has been so well explained by my worthy colleague from -Virginia, that I confess I am curtailed in my sentiments a little here. -But, suffice it to say, that the local circumstances of this country -will make the suspension of the law of alienage more advantageous by -tenfold, than could be reaped by American citizens over the other side -of the water. Witness the great disproportion between American citizens -holding lands in Britain and British subjects in this country. I wish it -may not revive old proprietary rights, with its long train of tenure, -fealty, and vassalage. Perhaps my fears may ensue from residing in that -of Virginia, where this tenure once prevailed. I now come to the third -objection, and the most important. Other objections, though they have -their weight in my mind, yet perhaps they might yield their force, were -it not for this the more insurmountable. This might be said with -propriety to be the foundation of the call for papers from the Executive -respecting the Treaty. - -By the various articles embracing this subject, the House of -Representatives of the United States, in the Treaty-making power, have -lived to see the day, which I am sure no human sagacity could have ever -divined, that they may be considered as a perfect collective cypherical -body of men in legislation, reduced to a mere Committee of Ways and -Means, subservient to Executive policy, just called together, for -voting the necessary supplies of money for foreign negotiation, or for -the current annual expenses of Government. America is here totally -disarmed of every alternative to resort to in the hour of distress--to -prevent the horrors of war, no sequestration, no embargo, no commercial -restriction, can be the subject of future legislation against the tender -and humane people of Britain. - -Is this right, is this just, that all our rights should be thus bartered -away under a Treaty-making power? If it is so, and it must be borne, -dreadful, dreadful, indeed, must be the calamity of future generations -of America, under the operation of this Government; for any one of them, -or all together, I would resort to an awful national crisis, sooner than -sound the trumpet of war, and let the banners of blood loose upon the -earth. - -Mr. WILLIAMS said, that various opinions had been delivered upon the -various subjects involved in the Treaty. He should take the liberty of -stating to the committee his sentiments on the occasion, and then -inquire into the policy or impolicy of carrying the Treaty into effect. -But, in the first place, he conceived it to be necessary to take a view -of its origin, the division, and party dissensions which then -prevailed--the critical posture of our affairs, the depredations -committed on our commerce, and the probability of a war. - -Let us, said Mr. W., take a view of the debates of that House in the -year 1793 and 1794, and he believed it would be discovered that if the -business of negotiation had not taken place, this country must have been -involved in a war. It would be remembered, that a gentleman from -Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) on the 3d of January, 1794, laid on the table -of this House seven resolutions. The object of which was to compel -Britain to come to some terms of accommodation, and to prevent further -depredations on our commerce. - -After a discussion of several weeks, the first resolution, which was for -imposing an additional duty on the importation of a great variety of -manufactures from nations having no Commercial Treaty with the United -States was agreed to by a small majority. Britain had, said he, ever -since the end of the war, declined entering into any Commercial Treaty -with us. In the mean time, the danger from British depredations -augmented with such rapidity that those resolutions became insufficient, -by reason of the seizure of an immense number of our vessels, in -consequence of instructions that had been given by the British Ministry -on the 6th of November, 1793; and other resolutions were then moved for -the sequestration of British property, but the result was an embargo and -negotiation. - -Was it not then urged by members of that House that the British nation -refused to negotiate with them? It was, indeed, supposed it would be -attended with considerable difficulties, and that a considerable class -of citizens, let the consequences be what they might, would not be -satisfied with the result. However, it was thought best to adopt the -measure. - -But, said Mr. W., let us waive this subject, and inquire if negotiation -had failed, whether war would not have been the consequence? Can it be -supposed that, after the British had committed certain spoliations on -our commerce; after their Order of the 6th of November, 1793; after the -declaration of Lord Dorchester to the Indians, that war would not have -followed? The national pride of Great Britain could not have yielded to -compulsion without self-degradation; and it would be remembered, too, -that from the relation in which the two countries have stood to each -other, it must have cost more to the pride of Britain to have received -the law from us than from any other power. And if war had been the -consequence, how were we to have recovered the amount of the spoliations -committed on the property of our merchants? How were we to act? Were we -to demand satisfaction? We have no protection to our commerce, and -therefore the British can at any time arrest it without additional -expense to themselves, having near 500 vessels of war at command. - -What had been our situation ever since the negotiation? Have we not, -said he, been one of the happiest nations upon earth? Yet we are about -to oppose the necessary appropriations to carry into effect that Treaty -which hath been the means of keeping us in a neutrality, and thereby -hazard a war which may be our ruin. - -But, if we arrest the Treaty by refusing to make the necessary -appropriations, can we suppose Great Britain will carry the Treaty into -effect on her part? It would be inconsistent to think so. Great Britain -was certainly acquainted with what was going on within these walls, and -would refuse to give up the posts at the time specified. Who had been -the cause of the posts being so long kept from the United States? The -State of New York had been too long kept from its just due; that State -had not prevented the British from obtaining their debt, and the people -now looked with anxious expectation to the time when the posts were to -be given up. They were, at present, considerably alarmed, lest the -British Treaty should not be carried into effect. He had received -letters that morning, from some of his constituents, who were at New -York, endeavoring to sell their produce (for a number of the farmers in -that part of the country which he came from, did not sell their produce -to the merchants, but attended the market with it themselves.) They -write the price of flour had already fallen three dollars a barrel, and -wheat four shillings per bushel. Who were to be the losers, under these -circumstances? The farmers. Who had the most produce to sell? The -farmers in the State of New York. The other day a resolution was laid -upon our table, proposing to lay an embargo on the exportation of corn. -This, if it had been agreed to, would have had an immediate effect on -the State of New York. - -What was the effect of the embargo in 1794? The farmers were obliged to -sell their produce for what they could get. Whatever loss was -experienced, fell upon the farmer; and so it will be with respect to -their present proceedings. If merchants cannot get insurance, will they -send their vessels out? No; and they will certainly give no more produce -than they can sell their articles for, with a trade profit. - -The great objection against the Treaty was, that payment for the negroes -which were carried away by the British, at the close of the war, was not -provided for. It appears that this, at best, was a doubtful point. -General Carlton, previous to his leaving New York at the close of the -war, and when the negroes were demanded of him, said, that many slaves -had been declared free by his predecessors before his own arrival; over -these, he said, he neither possessed nor could assume any control. He -considered them as at liberty to go to any part of the world which they -thought proper. He was unwilling to suppose that the British Ministry -could stipulate, by any Treaty, to make themselves guilty of a notorious -breach of public faith to people of any color. He considered -restoration, where inseparable from a violation of that faith, as, in -itself, utterly impracticable. - -It was acknowledged by every gentleman that the Treaty of 1783 was -broken by the United States; and, if so, what could their negotiator do? -The British Government would not come into the same terms as the Treaty -of 1783, in the sense and meaning of the gentleman from Virginia, nor -would they admit that that Treaty compelled them to give up or make -restitution for the negroes. Their negotiator, thus situated, no doubt -concluded that the amount of the negroes was not an object which ought -to prevent a negotiation so desirable at that time, and agreeable to the -law of nations. The Treaty of 1783 had been violated. Here Mr. W. quoted -several authorities, among which was _Marten's_ Law of Nations: "The -violation of one article only of a Treaty, by one party, may, at least -successively, give the other a right to violate the whole Treaty, unless -this right has been formally renounced." - -The United States having violated that Treaty, there was no other way -than commencing a negotiation. And would gentlemen say that the -negotiation had not been attended with beneficial consequences to this -country? Was not peace the most to be desired, especially in our present -situation? Had not the managers of our Government kept a watchful eye on -our affairs? Had not our neutrality been the occasion of our wealth and -prosperity? And having now entered into a Treaty with Spain, Algiers, -and Natives, let us carry that with Great Britain into effect, and -secure to us peace with all the world. - -When Mr. WILLIAMS had concluded-- - -Mr. HILLHOUSE rose and said, the subject now under consideration was one -of the first in magnitude he had ever been called to deliberate upon, -and that the circumstances under which it came up were peculiar, for -previous to the Treaty's being either promulgated or known, a -hue-and-cry had been raised, and the prejudices of the people as much as -possible excited against it, and he confessed it had not been without -its effect upon his own mind. When the Treaty came out, therefore, he -was led to examine it with attention, compare it with our Treaties with -other nations, and those between Great Britain and other nations; the -result of this inquiry was, that he found that no privilege or advantage -given by Great Britain to the other nations was withheld from us; that -advantages were secured to us which were enjoyed by no other nation, nor -even by her own subjects: that we gave her little that was not enjoyed -by every other nation; and, on the whole, that it was as good a Treaty -as we had a right to expect, and as he had ever expected to obtain. He -was sensible that prejudice, which, like a sentinel at the door of the -human mind to keep out truth and argument, had induced many good -citizens of the United States at first to be opposed to the Treaty, who, -upon being prevailed on to give it a more candid examination, had -declared in favor of it; but he hoped the Representatives of the people, -called to decide on a question which might affect the dearest interests -of millions, would, as much as possible, divest themselves of prejudice -and passion: to do it entirely, he believed, was impossible. - -The first, and, if well-founded, the most important objection which he -had heard made against the Treaty was, that a claim for negroes and -other property carried away from New York had been wholly overlooked or -given up by our Minister. Here, he said, he was sensible any argument he -might adduce would be opposed by the party opinions formed at the -time--when judging in our own case, and when we felt a great degree of -sensibility for the losses and injuries we had recently experienced. He -was not unapprised that Congress had claimed that the construction of -the 7th article of the Treaty was such as to require the delivering up -of the negroes, and had passed the resolution read by the gentleman from -Virginia, (Mr. HEATH,) and that that opinion had, without examination, -been implicitly followed by many respectable characters; but he hoped at -this distance of time, he might expect a candid hearing, whilst he -examined their arguments and the law of nations, to which alone resort -can be had to decide differences between sovereign and independent -nations. To his mind they were conclusive that we had not a well-founded -claim; to every mind, he believed, they would render the claim at least -doubtful. - -His first inquiry, he said, should be, whether negroes were to be -considered as property? This, he believed, must be admitted: they were -thus recognized by the article itself, which says "negroes or other -property." Negroes being mentioned amounts only to a specification of -one kind of property; as, in the constitution, it says "capitation or -other direct taxes," which is a conclusive recognition that a capitation -tax is a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution. Upon no -other ground than that of property could the United States claim them; -as men, they had a right to go where they pleased. Our commissioners, at -the time of the embarkation, had no hesitation in declaring that they -considered "negroes, horses, and other property," as being precisely on -the same footing, and selected a claim for a horse as one of the -strongest that could be found to enforce a compliance with this -construction of the article. The claim was in these words: - - "Mr. Vanderburgh had a horse stolen from him, out of his - stable in Beekman's Precinct, in Dutchess County, 26th - February, 1780, and the horse was conveyed by the person - who stole him to a then British post, in Westchester - County, where he has since been detained; so that Mr. - Vanderburgh could not recover him again. The horse is now - in the possession of Col. James De Launcy, of this city, - from whom Mr. Vanderburgh has demanded him, and who refuses - to deliver him to Mr. Vanderburgh." - -In the letter of the Commissioners to General WASHINGTON, on this -subject, they say: - - "In the interview between the 15th and 24th, numbers - applied to us for a restitution of their negroes and other - property in the possession of others, but we supposed it - most eligible to defer a requisition till a clear - unequivocal case, similar to that of Mr. Vanderburgh's, - where the proofs were at hand and not embarrassed with the - circumstances of a capture in war or other pretences under - which property is withheld here, should present itself; - sensible that if restitution was denied in such an - instance, it would inevitably be in every other." - -It therefore appears clear that negroes, horses, and other property, -were, by this article, placed upon the same footing, and that it was as -much a violation of the Treaty to carry away a horse as a negro. - -He next proceeded to inquire what was the situation of this property, -and in whom, according to the law of nations, it was vested at the time -of executing the Treaty? This point, he said, Mr. JEFFERSON had fully -settled to his hand, and read out of his collection the following -extracts: - - "We now come together (says Mr. Jefferson) to consider that - instrument which was to heal our wounds, and begin a new - chapter in our history. The state in which they found - things is to be considered as rightful; so says the Law of - Nations.--_Vattel._ The state in which things are found at - the moment of the Treaty, should be considered as lawful, - and if it is meant to make any change in it, the Treaty - must expressly mention it. Consequently, all things about - which the Treaty is silent, must remain in the state in - which they are found at its conclusion.--_Bynk._ Since it - is a condition of war that enemies may be deprived of all - their rights, it is reasonable that every thing of an - enemy's, found among his enemies, should change its owners, - and go to the Treasury. It is moreover usually directed, in - all declarations of war, that the goods of enemies, as well - those found among us as those taken in war, shall be - confiscated." - -These authorities, he said, clearly proved that all negroes and other -property which in the course of the war had been taken, or in any way -had fallen into the hands of the British, had shifted their owner, and -were no longer the property of the American inhabitants. In the case of -negroes, the British Commander-in-Chief had exercised the highest act of -ownership, by manumitting such of them as should conform to certain -stipulations, pointed out in his proclamation. If any change was -intended to have been made by the Treaty in the circumstances of these -negroes, and it had been intended they should be again returned into -bondage, there would have been some express stipulation to that effect -in the Treaty. The words are, "and without causing any destruction, or -carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, -withdraw all his armies," &c. There is nothing that indicates the least -intention that this article should have a retrospective operation. It -can only relate to property then belonging to the American inhabitants. -Wherever any article was intended to have a retrospective operation, -some expression is used that clearly shows such intention. In this same -article, speaking of delivering up records, deeds, &c., these words are -added, "which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of -his officers," &c. In the 4th article, "debts heretofore contracted." -Any other construction would have required the restoration of vessels -which had been taken from the Americans, and were then in New York, -under the term "other property," as well as negroes and horses. If any -negroes or other property, in the possession of the American inhabitants -at or after signing the preliminary articles, were carried off, it was -no doubt a violation of the Treaty, but he had not understood that they -refused to deliver up property of that description, or that such -property was carried off to any great amount. - -But this matter does not rest only on there being no words in the Treaty -which can be construed to have a retrospective operation, but it is -fairly to be inferred from the papers contained in this same collection -of Mr. JEFFERSON, that it was so understood by the negotiators; for, in -the course of that negotiation; it appears to have been a primary object -with the British Minister to obtain restitution of the Tory estates, or -compensation for them. They almost made a _sine qua non_, and a refusal -to comply had well-nigh broken off the negotiation; and to induce the -British Minister to relinquish that article, our commissioners brought -in a claim for negroes and other property which had been taken, and -towns and villages which had been destroyed during the war. He here read -the following letter from Mr. Oswald, the British Minister, to our -commissioners, viz: - - "You may remember, that from the very beginning of our - negotiation for settling a peace between Great Britain and - America, I insisted that you should positively stipulate - for the restoration of the property of all those under the - denomination of Loyalists or Refugees, who have taken part - with Great Britain in the present war; or if the property - had been resold, and passed into such variety of hands as - to render the restoration impracticable, (which you assert - to be the case in many instances,) you should stipulate for - a compensation or indemnification to those persons adequate - to their losses. To those propositions, you said, you could - not accede. Mr. Stachey, since his arrival at Paris, has - most strenuously joined me in insisting upon the said - restitution, compensation, or indemnification, and in - laying before you every argument in favor of the demands, - founded on national honor, and upon the true principles of - justice. Those demands you must have understood to extend, - not only to all persons of the above-mentioned description - who have fled to Europe, but likewise to all those who may - now be in any part of North America, dwelling under the - protection of His Majesty's arm, or otherwise. We have also - insisted on a mutual stipulation for a general amnesty on - both sides, comprehending thereby an enlargement of all - persons who, on account of offences committed, or supposed - to be committed, since the commencement of hostilities, may - now be in confinement, and for an immediate repossession of - their properties and peaceable enjoyment thereof, under the - Government of the United States. To this you have not given - a particular and direct answer. It is, however, incumbent - on me, as Commissioner of the King of Great Britain, to - repeat the several demands, and without going over those - arguments upon paper, which we have so often urged in - conversation, to press your immediate attention to these - subjects, and to urge you to enter into proper stipulations - for their restitution, compensation, and amnesty, before we - proceed further in this negotiation." - -To which our commissioners returned the following answer: - - "In answer to the letter you did us the honor to write on - the 4th instant, we beg leave to repeat what we often said - in conversation, viz: that the restoration of such of the - estates of the refugees as have been confiscated, is - impracticable, because they were confiscated by laws of - particular States, and in many instances have passed by - legal titles through several hands. Besides, sir, as this - is a matter evidently appertaining to the internal policy - of the separate States, the Congress, by the nature of our - constitution, have no authority to interfere with it. As to - your demand of compensation to those persons, we forbear - enumerating our reasons for thinking it ill-founded. In the - moment of conciliatory overtures, it would not be proper to - call certain scenes into view, over which a variety of - considerations should induce both parties at present to - draw a veil. Permit us, therefore, only to repeat, that we - cannot stipulate for such compensation, unless on your part - it be agreed to make restitution to our citizens for the - heavy losses they have sustained by the unnecessary - destruction of private property. We have already agreed to - an amnesty more extensive than justice required, and full - as extensive as humanity would demand; we can therefore, - only repeat, that it cannot be extended further. We should - be sorry, if the absolute impossibility of our complying - further with your propositions, should induce Great Britain - to continue the war, for the sake of those who caused and - prolonged it; but, if that should be the case, we hope that - the utmost latitude will not be again given to its rigors. - Whatever may be the issue of this negotiation, be assured, - sir, that we shall always acknowledge the liberal, manly, - and candid manner, in which you have conducted it." - -In consequence of information from our commissioners that the claim was -made and pertinaciously insisted on by the British Minister, Congress -passed the following resolutions, viz: - - "_Resolved_, That the Secretary for Foreign Affairs be, and - he is hereby, directed to obtain, as speedily as possible, - authentic returns of the slaves and other property which - have been carried off or destroyed in the course of the war - by the enemy, and to transmit the same to the Ministers - Plenipotentiary for negotiating peace. - - "_Resolved_, That, in the mean time, the Secretary for - Foreign Affairs inform the said Minister, that many - thousands of slaves, and other property to a very great - amount, have been carried off or destroyed by the enemy, - and that, in the opinion of Congress, the great loss of - property which the citizens of the United States have - sustained by the enemy, will be considered by the several - States as an insuperable bar to their making restitution or - indemnification to the former owners of property which has - been or may be forfeited to, or confiscated by, any of the - States." - -Dr. FRANKLIN, in a letter to the British Minister, says: - - "I must repeat my opinion, that it is best for you to drop - all mention of the refugees. We have proposed, indeed, - nothing but what we think best for you as well as - ourselves. But if you will have them mentioned, let it be - in an article which may provide that they shall exhibit - accounts of their losses to commissioners hereafter to be - appointed, who shall examine the same, together with the - accounts now preparing in America of the damages done by - them, and state the account; and that if a balance appears - in their favor, it shall be paid by us to you, and by you - divided among them, as you shall think proper. And if the - balance is found due to us, it shall be paid by you. Give - me leave, however, to advise you to prevent so dreadful a - discussion, by dropping the article, that we may write to - America and stop the inquiry." - -The following article was accordingly drawn up and proposed to be -inserted in the Treaty, viz: - - "It is agreed that His Britannic Majesty will earnestly - recommend it to his Parliament to provide for and make - compensation to the merchants and shopkeepers of Boston, - whose goods and merchandise were seized and taken out of - the stores, warehouses, and shops, by order of General - Gage, and others of his commanders or officers there; and - also the inhabitants of Philadelphia, for the goods taken - away by his army there; and to make compensation also for - the tobacco, rice, indigo, negroes, &c., seized and carried - off by his armies under Generals Arnold, Cornwallis, and - others, from the States of Virginia, North and South - Carolina, and Georgia: And also for all vessels and cargoes - belonging to the inhabitants of the said United States, - which were stopped, seized, or taken, either in the ports - or on the seas, by his Governors, or by his ships of war, - before the declaration of war against the said States. And - it is further agreed that His Britannic Majesty will also - earnestly recommend it to his Parliament to make - compensation for all the towns, villages, and farms, burnt - and destroyed by his troops or adherents in the said United - States." - -After pressing the matter to the utmost extent, we find, by Mr. ADAMS's -journal, that on the evening previous to signing the Treaty, Ministers -on both sides came to the following result: - - "Upon this I recounted the history of Gen. Gage's agreement - with the inhabitants of Boston, that they should remove - their effects, upon condition that they would surrender - their arms; but as soon as the arms were secured, the goods - were forbid to be carried out, and were finally carried off - in large quantities to Halifax. Dr. Franklin mentioned the - case of Philadelphia, and the carrying off effects there, - even his own library. Mr. Jay mentioned several other - things; and Mr. Laurens added the plunder in Carolina, of - negroes, plate, &c. After hearing all this, Mr. - Fitzherbert, Mr. Oswald, and Mr. Stachey, retired for some - time, and returning Mr. Fitzherbert said, that upon - consulting together, and weighing every thing as maturely - as possible, Mr. Stachey and himself had determined to - advise Mr. Oswald to strike with us according to the terms - we had proposed, as to our ultimatum respecting the - fishery, and the loyalists. Accordingly we all sat down, - read over the whole Treaty and corrected it, and agreed to - meet to-morrow at O.'s house, to sign and seal the - Treaties." - -Will any candid man say, after reviewing these circumstances, that the -7th article was meant to secure the restitution of negroes and other -property taken in the course of the war? If that had been meant, would -it not have been improper to have urged it as an argument against the -introduction of an article which would have subjected this country to -immense embarrassment and expense? - -It is true that the United States did challenge negroes and other -property, which had fallen into the hands of the British previous to -signing the Treaty. This circumstance, for the reason he had mentioned, -and others that might be suggested, ought to have very little weight, -for it is well known that recrimination of a violation of the Treaty -soon commenced on both sides, and each mustered up every tolerable -claim; many of which have since been admitted on both sides to be -groundless. A circumstance which strongly corroborated what he said was, -Sir Guy Carlton's letter on that subject had also been so grossly -misunderstood and misrepresented, from that time to this, and now -advanced by a gentleman on this floor, (Mr. GILES,) and even by Mr. -JEFFERSON--in this instance departing from that candor which is so -conspicuous in almost every other part of this excellent -performance--for, when speaking on this subject, he says, "here there -was a direct, unequivocal, and avowed violation of this part of the 7th -article, in the first moment of its being known." Mr. JEFFERSON has -given us a copy of Sir Guy Carlton's letter to General WASHINGTON, which -is relied on to support this assertion, which is so far from speaking -such a language, that in his opinion, it was directly the reverse, and -that in a very pointed manner. His words are: - - "I must confess, that the mere supposition that the King's - Minister could deliberately stipulate in a Treaty an - engagement to be guilty of a notorious breach of the public - faith towards people of any complexion, seems to denote a - less friendly disposition than I could wish, and I think - less friendly than we might expect. After all, I only give - my own opinion. Every negro's name is registered, the - master he formerly belonged to, with such other - circumstances as serve to denote his value, that it may be - adjusted by compensation, if that was really the intention - and meaning of the Treaty. Restoration was inseparable from - a breach of public faith, and is, as I think all the world - must allow, utterly impracticable." - -Gen. WASHINGTON, at that time, seemed disinclined to give an opinion on -that subject, but intimated the propriety of leaving any doubtful clause -of the Treaty to be settled by future negotiation; for in a letter from -him to our commissioners in New York, dated June, 1783, who had written -to him for particular and pointed instructions on this very subject, -there is this passage: - - "It is exceeding difficult for me, not being a witness to - the particular cases, or acquainted with the particular - circumstances which must fall under your view in the course - of the evacuation, to give you a precise definition of the - acts which you are to represent as infractions of the - Treaty; nor can I undertake to give an official - construction of any particular expression or terms of the - Treaty, which must, in cases of ambiguity or different - interpretations, be explained by the Sovereignties of the - two nations, or their commissioners appointed for that - purpose." - -A letter drawn up with great caution and extremely characteristic of -that great man, who has always been extremely careful never to commit -himself, but upon mature deliberation and upon sure ground. Here, Sir -Guy Carlton, as a public officer of Great Britain, had made an explicit -declaration on the subject, and that was directly against our claims; -for his directing an inventory of the negroes, was only an evidence of -his being disposed to conduct candidly in the matter, and give us an -opportunity to recover a compensation, if we could afterwards make out -our construction of the Treaty to be right. - -Both in the United States and Great Britain it is admitted, as a sound -rule of construction, that where any law or instrument is doubtful, and -the liberty of any one, even of a slave, to be affected by it, that -construction was to be preferred which was favorable to liberty. Under -this rule, ought this Treaty to be so construed as to reduce to slavery -three thousand persons who had obtained their liberty, by putting -themselves under the protection of the British arms, unless there was -some positive unequivocal stipulation in the Treaty which could admit of -no other construction, he hoped, for the honor of America, they would -make no such challenge. There was another circumstance which he had -never seen mentioned, which, in his opinion, greatly weakened our -claims, which was the doubts he entertained of our right to demand of a -foreign nation the restitution of a runaway slave. The United States are -now at peace with all the world; suppose a slave should escape into the -dominions of a foreign nation, and on demand they should refuse to -deliver him up? he very much doubted whether we should have just ground -of complaint. On the other hand, if any of our citizens may be so -unfortunate as to be reduced to slavery by any of the Barbary powers in -Africa, should make their escape into the dominions of any of the -European nations, and upon being claimed by such powers, should be -delivered up, he did believe we should have good ground of complaint -against such nation, as being unjust and inhumane. And, so far as -principle is concerned, what difference does it make whether the -citizens of the United States are carried into slavery in Africa, or the -inhabitants of Africa are brought into slavery in the United States? He -knew of no principle that made a difference between the natural rights -of a white or black man. The first principle that is laid down in the -rights of man, is, that all men are born free and equal; it does not say -all _white_ men. He did not believe, he said, that the House would ever -admit so absurd a doctrine, as that the different shades in a man's -complexion would increase or diminish his natural rights. He hoped no -gentleman would take any exception to what he had said on this point; he -did not mean to give offence, or to throw any reflection on any part of -the Union, on account of their having a larger proportion of slaves. It -was an evil which existed at the commencement of our Revolution, and he -trusted every part of the Union would get rid of the evil as soon as it -should be practicable and safe. What he had said, was only what he felt -himself bound to do in justification of our Minister for his having -given up that claim. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE requested gentlemen to pause a moment, and reflect what -will be our situation if this Treaty is rejected. The peace of 1783 is -agreed on both sides to have been infracted, since that Great Britain -has committed depredations on our commerce to an immense amount. Is it -supposed that all this matter can go off without any noise or -combustion? As to treating again, no one can suppose that we could do it -to any advantage, after such rejection. What may Great Britain expect, -if we will not settle our differences by negotiation? Will she not -expect that we shall resort to more violent measures--such as reprisal, -sequestration, or stopping of intercourse? And to guard herself against -such measures, may we not expect she will lay her hand upon all our -property on the ocean? He said he looked upon such events as the natural -consequences of our rejecting the Treaty. What may we expect will be the -conduct of our own citizens? Will they tamely submit to be robbed of -their property, when they lose all hope of aid or protection from the -Government? They will not; they will defend it even to the shedding of -blood; and not only so, but they will also take every opportunity they -have to make reprisal for the property they have already lost upon those -who did them the injury, whether they belong to one nation or another. -What, he asked, could be the end of all these things but war? - - -WEDNESDAY, April 20. - -_Treaty with Great Britain._ - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union, and the resolution for carrying the British Treaty -into effect, being under consideration, - -Mr. PAGE said, that he had heard no arguments in favor of the resolution -before the committee, but such as might be used to influence a vote at -any other time, and upon almost any occasion; for we are told that war, -or popular discontent, and great inconvenience and distress to -merchants, underwriters, and others, will be the consequence of its -rejection. If such threats can influence this House upon the present -occasion, an unhappy and mortifying comparison may be made between the -Congress of 1776, and that of the present day. They despised and -encountered the dangers of war actually commenced. He wished, when -members were disposed to mention their fears of such dangers, they would -first clear the galleries; for such communications ought to be secret. -Did members really believe that Great Britain will declare war against -the United States, if this House should refuse to be accessary to the -violation of the constitution, the destruction of their own rights, of -the rights of neutral nations, and of the interests of their -constituents? If they do believe this, is their belief founded on -conjecture alone, or on the negotiator's declaration, that the British -Ministers threatened him with war, declaring that war should be the -consequence of a rejection of the Treaty? If the latter be the case, and -nothing less can justify such repeated assertion that war will be the -consequence of a refusal to carry the Treaty into effect, the Treaty -ought to be deemed null and void on account of that threat; and if the -former, they may be assured that they are mistaken, and that Britain is -not so frantic as to engage in a war with the United States upon such -slight grounds. The citizens of the United States wish not to be at war -with the British nation; nor can the people of Britain desire a war with -them. Both must wish for peace, and a full commercial intercourse upon -liberal terms; and as the Executive authority of both countries are well -disposed to each other, and have, as far as in their power, carried the -Treaty into execution, what reason can be assigned why we should be -involved in a war? It has been said that the United States will be -obliged to declare war, on account of the British refusal (which may be -expected) to deliver up the posts, and to make compensation for -spoliations of our commerce; but I see no necessity for such conduct. -For my part, should Britain never give up the posts, I would not vote -for war, nor be at the expense of a single regiment to take them; nor -would I go to war to recover losses sustained by spoliations. For, if we -reject the resolution before you, sir, we may be at liberty to pass such -a bill as we I passed in the year 1794, by a majority of twenty-four -members, and for which thirteen Senators then voted; and should the -Senate concur with us in passing it, we might use it more effectually -than a declaration of war for the recovery of the posts, and reparation -of wrongs. As to war, as my colleague yesterday said, I have reason to -deprecate it, for the sake of my constituents, and for my own sake; for -I have experienced enough of its evils; but I cannot think that I ought -to sacrifice their dearest interests merely from an apprehension of the -dangers of war. The arguments, therefore, which I have heard, cannot -induce me to vote for the resolution before you. Indeed, sir, I must -vote against it; because I think that the Treaty is unconstitutional and -pernicious; and even if it were constitutional in every respect, and as -advantageous to the United States as it has been represented, I should -think it impolitic and dishonorable in this House to lend its aid to -carry it into effect during the present war, and a continuance of the -British depredations on our commerce, and impressment of our seamen. The -Treaty appears to me unconstitutional, because it takes from Congress -that very power with which it was invested by the constitution, and to -invest them with which, the constitution itself was expressly formed; a -power which I think should be held as precious and unalienable. I mean -the power of regulating the commerce of the United States with Great -Britain; so as to induce her to fulfil all the conditions of the Treaty -of Peace, and to put the trade of the United States with her upon a -footing of reciprocity. It appears also unconstitutional, because it -violates a solemn act of Congress passed in conformity to the express -words, and I may say, in obedience to the injunction of the spirit of -the constitution: I mean the act for establishing a uniform rule of -naturalization, and this violation, too, operates partially, and in -favor of British subjects alone. It is moreover unconstitutional, -because it interferes with the authority of the Judiciary, by -establishing a Court of Commissioners, a kind of supreme court of -appeals, within the United States, with powers to proceed, unknown to -our laws; with temptations to defendants to make no defence; with a -right to bind the United States to pay debts which they owe not, and to -any extent or amount which that court may think fit to decree; and it is -unconstitutional, because it authorizes the PRESIDENT to create certain -offices, and annex salaries thereto. In these instances, at least, I -think the Treaty unconstitutional; for I think that Congress cannot -authorize the PRESIDENT to do away the power of Congress or to establish -a court of appeals superior to the Federal Supreme Court; that, -whatever would be unconstitutional, if done by Congress, cannot be -constitutional if done by the PRESIDENT and British King. But, sir, if -the Treaty were not unconstitutional, that is, if the PRESIDENT and -Senate had a right to deprive Congress of the power it claims, and to -interfere with the Judiciary, yet the exercise of that right in the -present case, ought to be viewed as so pernicious to the United States -as to render the Treaty null and void; or, at least, it ought to be -viewed as an argument of sufficient weight to induce this House to -refuse their aid towards carrying this Treaty into operation. And were -it even constitutional and advantageous to the United States in every -article, yet, as it acquiesces in a violation of the rights of neutral -nations in favor of Great Britain, and in some instances, to such a -degree as to be thought even by the PRESIDENT himself, to afford just -ground for discontent on the part of our allies, it will be dishonorable -and highly impolitic in this House to be in any manner instrumental in -carrying it into effect. As it has not been in the power of the United -States to assist their Republican allies, when fighting in fact their -battles, the least they can do, or the least that the world and those -allies can expect from them, must be, that they will not put the enemies -of those allies into a better condition than they were by making -Treaties with them during the present war. - -Mr. FINDLAY said he should not think it necessary to resume any of the -arguments relative to a principle which had already been settled in that -House; yet, he observed, that every gentleman who spoke on the subject -seemed to argue what were the rights of that body upon the subject of -Treaties, as if no question had already been had on the occasion. - -It had been insisted upon, notwithstanding the decision which had been -had, that a Treaty was a law when it came before that House, and they -had no power but to appropriate to carry it into effect. He said this -opinion was directly contrary to the opinion held on the constitution at -the time it was accepted in Pennsylvania. Moral discretion, he said, was -necessary to be exercised in every decision of that House, except the -constitution had prescribed to them some positive rule of action. In -ratifying the constitution in the State of Pennsylvania, this was the -understanding of it. The minority in the convention did not wish so much -power placed in the Executive, and he appealed to gentlemen in that -convention, if this was not the doctrine asserted by the majority in -answer to the objections of the minority. Indeed, if they were not to -have exercised a moral obligation upon the Treaties, the constitution -would have expressly said so, as in the case of the PRESIDENT's salary, -the pay of the Judges, Army appropriations, &c. If they had not been -limited in these articles by the constitution, they certainly would have -had the power to have changed them if they had thought proper. - -But, passing over this consideration, there had been pretty large views -taken of the manner in which the Treaty came before them. The gentlemen -from New York and Virginia had entered into the subject. He must beg -leave to differ from the gentleman from New York as to the matter of -fact relative to that House in the concerns of Government two years ago. -He had no apprehensions at the time the Envoy was sent to Britain to -negotiate a Treaty, that Britain would have commenced a war if that -measure had not been adopted; so far from it, that a majority of that -House thought differently. He had no doubt that war, and the destruction -of liberty altogether, had been meditated by Great Britain; but before -the negotiation was commenced, circumstances occurred which caused her -to give up this extravagant design. Before the negotiator was appointed, -it is well known that the plundering Order of the 6th November was -revoked. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) had given a very good -narrative of events in Europe, which fully showed the cause of this -change of conduct. That gentleman had also gone through the Treaty, -article by article, in a manner so much to his satisfaction, that he -should not attempt to follow him. Before the negotiation took place, we -had suffered considerably by British spoliations, and that House thought -of various means to make it the interest of that power not to continue -their depredations. First one plan was proposed and then another. It -need not be mentioned that amongst these was the plan of sequestration, -the future power of doing which this Treaty proposed to deprive them of. -It was discussed in the House, but no question taken on it, to show that -negotiation was not thought necessary. He mentioned a conversation which -had taken place betwixt a gentleman then in the Cabinet (now no more) -and himself, which confirmed his opinion of the propriety of the -measures. A bill for regulating commerce in such a manner as to make it -the interest of Britain to refrain from injuring us, and redress the -wrongs we had suffered by spoliations, was agreed to by the House, but -negatived in the Senate. So far from being then afraid of war, they were -more and more convinced that it was in their power to make it the -interest of Britain to refrain from their acts of violence towards us. - -Mr. MOORE.--Mr. Chairman, I rise with diffidence to give my sentiments -on so important a question as that now before you, especially as I have -been preceded by gentlemen whose superior abilities have enabled them to -investigate the subject with more accuracy than I am capable of. I -consider the object as important of itself. It is rendered more so by -the warmth with which it has been discussed--the irritation it has -produced, both in this House and on the public mind. I lament that -improper motives should be imputed to gentlemen on either side. I am -disposed to believe, that gentlemen aim at doing what will best promote -the public interest. I entertain no suspicion of designs against the -Government by any member of this House, or any branch of the Government. -Gentlemen have predicted a war and dissolution of the Government, if -provision is not made for carrying the Treaty into effect. I have no -apprehensions of either. It is highly improper to attempt to influence -the votes of members by such declarations. I hope gentlemen will believe -that members who differ from them in opinion, are equally zealous with -themselves in discharging their duty, and have firmness enough to repel -every attempt to intimidate. For myself, I have equal confidence in -every part of the Union, that they have no wish to dissolve it. The -suggestion is unfounded, and ought not to be made. - -Mr. Chairman, the vote which I shall give on the question before us, -will, in some degree, be influenced by a constitutional principle, which -I consider as involved in the decision. On the resolution calling for -the instructions given to Mr. Jay, and other papers relative to the -Treaty, it was insisted on by members of this House, that the Executive -has a right, by Treaty, to supersede all Legislative powers vested in -Congress by the constitution. The Executive gives the same construction -to the constitution. If, under these circumstances, I vote for the -resolution before you, I consider myself as admitting, as recognizing -the principle contended for. This I cannot do. On the admission, or -rejection of this principle, I am of opinion, the future course, the -future operations of Government materially depend. By this it will be -decided, whether it is wholly Executive or not: whether this House -depends on the courtesy of the Executive for their right to interfere in -legislation. - -It has been argued, that this extensive, unlimited power, was -necessarily vested in the Executive, subject only to the control of the -Senate. In order to support the sovereignty and independence of the -small States, I do conceive that a branch of the Legislature in which -the States are equally represented, was all that could be claimed. Can -it be conceived to be necessary, just, or proper, that the regulation of -all the important interests of the Union should be at the disposal of -the Executive? Can gentlemen seriously believe that the citizens of the -United States, who opposed, at so great an expense of blood and -treasure, the claim of Great Britain to tax us unrepresented, would -admit all their interest to be represented by so unequal a -representation as that contended for? It has been asked, Is not the -Senate as worthy of the confidence of the citizens of the United States -as this House? I will ask, are they more? This Legislative power is -restrained and checked by the constitution; particular modes and -restrictions are prescribed, but no checks are imposed on the Executive. -Were the people jealous of this House, and not of the other branches? -Did they suspect the Legislature of doing wrong? When this House was -connected with the other branches, were they to regulate their -interests; and have they reposed unlimited confidence in the other -branches when acting without this? Did they consider this House as the -only branch from which any danger was to be apprehended? It is -impossible, yet this must have been the fact, if the construction given -to the constitution is a just one. - -A gentleman from Connecticut has said, that gentlemen had prejudged the -Treaty; they come forward with prejudices against it, determined to vote -against it. It is not so with me. I was strongly inclined to vote for -it; to make some degree of sacrifice rather than defeat it. - -Gentlemen, on reflection, must be convinced that the question has not -been prejudged. The Envoy was appointed at the moment when this House -was deliberating on means for preventing further spoliations on our -commerce. Commercial regulations were proposed, and other means from -which they might have been forced to abandon their unjust and oppressive -system. I remember well the arguments then used were convincing to my -mind; that those were the only weapons of defence within our power; that -they would be effectual. But these were arrested by the despatch of an -Envoy Extraordinary. Some of the leading features of the Treaty were -then predicted; the event has corresponded with those predictions. -Principles were then discussed, which the Treaty contains, before the -negotiator was appointed. - -This shows there was no prejudging in the manner gentlemen have stated. -By this Treaty all the measures then contemplated by the Legislature are -arrested; an eternal veto is imposed against our ever carrying the -measures then contemplated into effect. This shows that the Executive -claims not only the constitutional right of forcing this House to pass -what laws they please, but also, by Treaty, to declare what they shall -not do. - -We have passed a resolution, which is now on your files, declarative of -the sense of this House as to their constitutional rights. The question -is, however, undecided. The Executive and Senate will proceed to act on -their own construction. They may, on their own construction, make a -Treaty, which will imply a still more imperious and commanding necessity -to provide for its execution, than even the present case. This necessity -may force a relinquishment of the right contended for by this House. It -may force an acquiescence in the Executive regulating all the interests -of the Union. I believe it was not the sense of the framers of the -constitution. It is not the sense of the people who adopted it. It never -can be mine. - -The merits of the Treaty have been ably and accurately discussed. I will -make but a few remarks on it. I must disagree with the gentleman from -Connecticut, who mentioned, as a well-known principle in judging of -Treaties, that all property, (by fair construction, and by the -established law of nations,) if not excepted particularly in a Treaty, -remains in the same state in which it was found when the Treaty was -made. Those in possession retain the possession. From this he has -concluded, that negroes, taken during the war, had become the property -of the captors, or rather, were emancipated. The words of the Treaty of -Peace are, "negroes and other property." - -This plainly shows, in his opinion, that, by negroes, was not meant -those taken during the war; they were not American property. The -property was changed. It could only be intended, such negroes as were -taken after the peace. I will ask, was it ever known in a Treaty, that a -stipulation was made to give up property plundered after the peace? Is -it not an established principle amongst all civilized nations, that -plundered property shall be given up? Is it necessary, or was it ever -thought so, to make it a stipulation by Treaty? I believe, if his -construction is a just one, it is a new case, the provision was at least -nugatory. - -But if the principle he lays down is a just one, how does it happen that -debts due to British subjects, paid by the debtors into the Treasury -under the sanction of a law, and appropriated to the use of the State, -are now recoverable by the British creditor? An important case of this -kind has been decided in the Federal Court, and judgment given for the -British creditor. Was the property less changed by the law of a -sovereign and independent State, than by the proclamation of a British -commander? This cannot be. The fact is, however, that in two cases, -found in the same instrument, there are claims founded on the same -principle; the one, a British claim, is established, the other, a claim -of the United States, is rejected. This involves in it an absurdity. By -those opposed modes of construction, an important claim of the citizens -of the United States is given up by the Treaty, a claim against them to -a great amount is established. - -The claim as against us is admitted; our claim is rejected, in cases -where the same principle fairly applies, and where, by gentlemen's own -showing, there is no dissimilarity which can justify such opposite -constructions. There is another provision of the Treaty, by which an -important interest has been sacrificed. British subjects held lands -within the United States before the war; many of those claims were -barred; the claimant being an alien could not recover; his being an -alien was the only bar. It was effectual--such has been the decision of -the Courts. But by the Treaty, being aliens shall not bar the claim of -British subjects--thus, many of the extensive claims are restored. In -some of the States more than half their territory will be revested in -proprietors. What could induce this grant? What equivalent do we receive -for this sacrifice? Sir, I am constrained to think the Treaty a bad one, -in those instances I have mentioned, more so than in any others. And -when I connect with the Treaty itself the important constitutional -question which has been discussed, I cannot vote for the resolution -before you. - -Mr. KITTERA.--Since the 4th of July, 1776, the Councils of America have -not been agitated by so momentous a question as that at present before -the committee. At the period to which I allude, the question was, -whether we should tamely submit to an abject and disgraceful slavery, -with all its concomitant evils, or, by a Declaration of Independence, an -exertion of our internal strength, with the advantages of foreign aid, -make a bold and manly effort to obtain the blessings of freedom--the -solid rewards of well-earned liberty. The present question is, whether -we shall supply the means of carrying into execution a Treaty of -Commerce and Amity with a powerful nation, entered into by a Minister of -the United States, and solemnly ratified by the authorities constituted -by the people for such purposes; or, by refusing, perhaps -unconstitutionally refusing those means, hazard the peace, interrupt the -prosperity, and tarnish the honor of the country? In a question of such -magnitude, prudence calls me to pause, duty to reflect. My country's -faith is plighted, a solemn contract is made; it would therefore be -unwise and impolitic, as it concerns the interest, and dishonorable, as -it regards the character, of this nation, in the infancy of its -existence, to violate so solemn a contract. - -Two causes have contributed much to prejudice the American mind against -the Treaty. 1st. An enthusiasm for France, struggling in the cause of -liberty, against the combined Monarchs of Europe, in which combination, -the very power with whom the Treaty was made, formed a prominent part. -2dly. Strong resentment against Britain, for injuries received during a -tedious and cruel war, and those injuries renewed by a detention of our -Western posts, exciting and aiding the savage Indian tribes in the -commission of hostilities on our frontiers, with strong indication of a -design to contract our boundaries, and their lawless depredations on our -commerce. I will not add, that there are amongst us some irreconcilable -enemies to this Government, who opposed its adoption, predicted its -downfall, and whose pride and political consequence are suspended on the -fulfilment of this prediction. For the honor of human nature, and for -the character of my country, I hope there are few to answer this -description; if, however, there are any, the poet's execration is to -them peculiarly applicable: "Cursed be the man who owes his greatness to -his country's ruin?" - -There are some things in which the candid part of those who hear me will -not disagree. 1st. That our Envoy was a wise and honest man; he was a -tried patriot, skilled in diplomatic life, and rendered to his country -important services during the late war. The tale of his receiving -British gold was made for children and fools, and need only to be told, -to be disbelieved. 2dly. He made the best bargain he could. I will not -mention, in proof of this, the ratification of the contract, eight -months afterwards, by the PRESIDENT, (in whom this country has -certainly an unbounded confidence,) with the advice of two-thirds of the -Senate; but I have proof positive. The letter of Mr. Pinckney, our -Minister resident at London, and conversant with every part of the -negotiation, in strong and decided terms advises Mr. Jay to accept the -contract as the best that could be procured, and as one that would -promote the interests of this country. 3dly. If negotiations had been -unsuccessful; if the Treaty, on the terms offered, had been rejected, -war must have ensued. Our national honor would have forbidden a tame -submission under so many insults and injuries; such submission would -have invited new insults, and our own safety would have made resistance -and retaliation necessary. - -The Treaty naturally presents itself under two general heads: 1st. Such -parts of it as are permanent, to wit, the first ten articles. 2dly. Such -parts of it as are temporary, to continue for two years after the -expiration of the war in which Great Britain is now engaged. Three great -points are embraced under the first arrangement: a surrender of our -Western posts, compensation for the spoliations committed on our -commerce, and the payment of British debts. However lightly my colleague -from the western part of Pennsylvania (Mr. FINDLAY) spoke yesterday of -the Western posts, I consider the acquisition as an important treasure -to this country. It will not only increase the value of our Western -lands, and open to us a new source of commerce, but it will relieve us -from the expense and horrors of an Indian war. Those were the sentiments -of the gentleman himself, on this floor, two years ago. The spoliation -on our commerce has generally been estimated at five millions of -dollars. On a rejection of the Treaty, I wish the gentlemen in the -opposition to point out how the American merchants are to be reimbursed -for their loss. Nothing can be expected from new negotiations. It would -be a solemn mockery of justice to the claim of those citizens. Payment -out of the Treasury has been talked of, and a resolution to that effect -is now on your table. This can never be done. It would be without a -precedent, and Congress has heretofore refused the claim. And how can -you discriminate such claims from those rising from savage depredations -on your frontier settlers? The protection of the Government was, at -least, as much due to the peaceable farmer as the speculating merchant; -and if losses have arisen for want of such protection, compensation is -as justly due in the one case as in the other. But why are we to subject -the Government to this payment, or our citizens to this loss, when -compensation is offered by the nation that has done the wrong? As to -British debts, the committee have had various calculations of their -amount. - -I believe some of the estimates have been exceedingly exaggerated. If -they are even half the enormous sum that has been stated on the other -side, we have not much difficulty in accounting for the extraordinary -opposition to the administration of this Government that has appeared -in a certain quarter of the Union. Whatever may be the amount, the -nation is bound by the strongest ties of justice and national honor to -secure the payment. - -Mr. HOLLAND said, he would submit some considerations to the committee, -that, together with those which had been given, would influence his vote -upon the resolution on the table; a subject, as had been said by all who -advocated the resolution, of the first importance--an issue on which -depended peace or war. He said, he considered the question of some -importance, particularly as it related to their constitutional powers; -but the conceptions of gentlemen had exaggerated the result of the -present question. It was nothing more or less than, would they or would -they not now appropriate moneys to carry the British Treaty into effect? -He said, he had ever felt a disposition to that purpose; not because the -faith of the nation, as had often been said, was pledged; not because -they were under moral obligations, as had been contended for--neither of -which he could admit; but because a respect was due to the negotiator, -to the Senate who advised, and to the PRESIDENT who ratified it; for, it -was to be presumed, until the contrary appeared, that they exercised -their judgments for the good of the nation. But it was possible the -means they have adopted may not produce the end intended; they may have -been mistaken. - -When he first examined the instrument, he was in hopes that there was -something extrinsic existing, which, when communicated to him, would do -away the exceptions on the face of the instrument, and therefore he was -silent and suspended his judgment. It was for that purpose he had voted -for the papers relative to the negotiation to be laid on the table, in -hopes of obtaining further information, previous to his being called -upon to carry it into effect. But, unfortunately for him, no further -information was to be obtained. The useful papers, an innocent and -humble request, were not granted. He was not possessed of any other -information than could be drawn from the instrument, from the writers on -that subject, and the arguments that had been advanced by the gentlemen -who had advocated the resolution; to the whole of which he had with -candor attended, and with regret informed the committee, that nothing -had been advanced, that had convinced him of the reason, propriety, -necessity, or fitness, of the stipulations contained in the instrument. - -Those gentlemen, instead of reasoning, have endeavored to alarm. They -have said that, if we do not carry this Treaty into effect, that we -shall be plunged in a war; that Britain is a proud and haughty nation; -that they will lay their hands upon all our property, &c. This was an -address to our fears and not our reason, and were our fears once on the -wreck, there is no knowing the result, or where we should land. But, in -this instance, we would not be governed by panic, or dread of the power -of that haughty nation, as they had been called; but as the -Representative of a free and independent nation, he felt himself -perfectly at liberty to exercise his reason in the most cool and -deliberate manner. Not apprehending any danger, the time has been, and -now is, that we are perfectly secure in asserting our equal and -reciprocal rights with that nation. We have done it in a state of -infancy and inexperience, at a time much more unfavorable, taking each -side of the question into view, than the present. And shall we now -hesitate, and tamely suffer them to dictate to us? And are we bound to -accept the Treaty, lest they should be offended and treat us with -contempt for not accepting, as it is said, a more favorable offer than -they have given to other nations? Are we not the sole judges; have we -not a right to determine for ourselves? And as this is a mere naked -stipulation, they can receive no damage, nor, on this early notice, can -they charge with deception, or have any right to complain. One thing is -certain; so long as Great Britain finds it for her interest to be -pacific, she will adopt measures calculated to preserve peace; but when -interest dictates the contrary, her invention will not seek a pretext -for a different conduct. The history of that nation gives abundant proof -of this. - -Mr. SWANWICK objected that his colleague (Mr. KITTERA) had charged him -with a want of candor. He was liable to mistake, he said, equally with -any other man; but he trusted he should not be charged with knowingly -misstating any thing with respect to the East India trade; he had -reserved to himself a future opportunity of speaking on that subject, -which, however, the length of debate seemed likely to prevent. He had -said that the American vessels were permitted to trade to the East -Indies as all other nations were, but that they were obliged to land -their goods in the United States, whilst the Danes, Swedes, &c., could -go there and carry the goods which they purchased from thence to any -part of the world, except to the British dominions; and that was the -situation of America antecedent to the present Treaty. A ship of his, -some time ago, earned a good freight from Bengal to Ostend, and another -he knew had lately made one to Hamburg; but, by the Treaty before the -House, whatever advantages might be made by going to a foreign port -their vessels were deprived of, and must return direct to the ports of -the United States. These, he said, were stipulations which no other -nation lay under; and though, perhaps, no nation had special leave -stipulated by Treaty to go there, yet they all, nevertheless, did go, -and never met with any opposition. - - -FRIDAY, April 22. - -_Execution of British Treaty._ - -After the presentation of several petitions on this subject, the House -resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, -when the resolution for carrying into effect the British Treaty being -under consideration-- - -Mr. COIT said, that the importance of the resolution before the -committee would preclude all necessity of analogy for any member's -asking their attention to his observations. He should only add to it, -that he should endeavor not to repeat what had been already said. - -He observed, that the discussion of the merits of the Treaty came before -the committee under peculiar disadvantages, for, besides the prejudices -against it that might be supposed to have been caused by extraneous -circumstances, the agitation of the important constitutional question -relative to the right of the Legislature to concur in giving validity to -this Treaty, which was claimed to be valid and complete without that -concurrence, and the refusal of a call for papers had very naturally a -tendency to give a bias to the minds of some gentlemen against the -Treaty; for himself, he was fully satisfied the Legislature had no -constitutional connection with the business of making Treaties. - -Mr. C. said he should attempt to run through the objections which had -been made to the Treaty, and consider its merits independently of the -peculiar circumstances under which it was now presented to the -committee, and then give his own view of it as relative to those -peculiar circumstances. - -The objects of the negotiation, he said, very naturally were divided -into three parts--the inexecution of the Treaty of 1783; mutual -complaints between the United States and Great Britain relative to -transactions independent of the Treaty; and arrangements for the -intercourse between the two nations, commercial and political. But as -gentlemen had made their objections generally in the order in which the -several articles of the Treaty had been arranged, he should follow the -same order in his observations in answer to them. - -The first objection which had been made was, that no compensation had -been stipulated to the United States for the supposed breach of the -Treaty of 1783, in carrying off the negroes. This objection, he had -supposed, was so completely answered by his colleague, (Mr. HILLHOUSE,) -who had been up the day before, that he should not have added on that -head, but that he had since found gentlemen still insisting on that -objection. He was particularly surprised to hear the gentleman from -Pennsylvania (Mr. FINDLAY) stating that he conceived the negro article -to have been put into the Treaty expressly as a compensation or set-off -for the engagement to pay the British debts. This pretension, he -thought, had been fully refuted by the extract from Mr. Adams's journal, -quoted by Mr. Jefferson in his correspondence with Mr. Hamilton, and -which had been read by his colleague. From that extract, it appeared -that a claim for negroes and other property which had been plundered, -carried off, and destroyed by the British, was made by our -commissioners, as a set-off against a claim made by the British -commissioners for restoration of confiscated estates; and that the one -of those claims was abandoned with the other. Had the gentleman from -Pennsylvania taken the pains to examine the journal of Mr. Adams, which -might be seen by any member of the committee at the office of the -Secretary of State, he would have found how the article came to be -inserted. - -Before the _signing of the Treaties_ with which the extract made by Mr. -Jefferson is closed, stands in the original the history of this article -in these words: - - "Mr. Laurens said, there ought to be a stipulation that the - British troops should carry off no negroes or other - property; we all agreed. Mr. Oswald consented, and _then - the Treaties were signed_," _&c._ - -This, Mr. COIT said, was all the mention he could find respecting this -article, except in a subsequent part of the same letter, in which Mr. -Adams observes: - - "I was very happy that Mr. L. came in, although it was the - last day of the conferences, and wish he could have been - sooner. His apprehension, notwithstanding his deplorable - affliction under the recent loss of so excellent a son, is - as quick, his judgment as sound, and his heart as firm as - ever. He had an opportunity of examining the whole, and - judging and approving; and the article which he caused to - be inserted at the very last, that no property should be - carried off, which would most probably, in the multiplicity - and hurry of affairs, have escaped us, was worth a longer - journey, if that had been all, but his name and weight is - added, which is of much greater consequence." - -From these extracts, it appeared, the article was not a subject of -negotiation, but inserted at the close of the transaction, without -discussion, as a matter of course, and which Mr. Adams supposes might, -in the multiplicity and hurry of affairs, have been omitted, if Mr. -Laurens had not suggested it. - -Mr. C. said, he would candidly acknowledge that it was very -extraordinary to him, that the construction which had been generally put -on the article in America, should have so universally prevailed, if it -was not the true one, that Congress should have adopted it; and that -such should have been the idea of the commissioners appointed to -superintend the embarkation at New York, in the year 1783. Still more -extraordinary was it to him, to find Mr. Jay himself, when Secretary for -Foreign Affairs, in the year 1786, in a report he then made to Congress -on the subject, considering the carrying off of those negroes as a -violation of the Treaty, and saying further, that he understood from Mr. -Adams, then at the Court of London, that the British Minister had no -objections to making compensation for them. Still he believed, the true -construction of the article was, that it was designed only to prevent -plunder by the British troops, and carrying off of American property, -according to the ordinary agreements in Treaties, which stipulate for -the giving up of conquered countries. True, it might be asked, why say -negroes or other property? The expression, he agreed, was not correct, -unless a doubt might have been entertained whether negroes were -property; but the word negroes must be qualified by other property, with -which it is connected, and could operate only as if it had said horses -or other property, which no person would contend amounted to a -stipulation not to carry off what had once been, but by the laws of war -and nations, before the close of the war, had ceased to be the property -of American inhabitants. Four gentlemen from Virginia had insisted on -this objection, and not one of them had deigned to remark on the -construction of the article itself. They had all relied upon the common -understanding of it. That this understanding could not change the sense -of the article, if it was not doubtful, could not be denied. Their -leaving the article and resorting to the common understanding of it, he -conceived to be a tacit acknowledgment of the gentlemen, that the -instrument itself would not bear the construction they wished to give -it. - -Whether the negotiator had urged this construction of the article, and -found he could not obtain its admission, or even an arbitration upon it, -he did not know; from his opinion of the good sense and understanding of -Mr. Jay, however, he was for himself satisfied that, whatever might have -been his former opinions, on attending to the subject, he had found what -had been called the American construction was not the just one, and had -therefore abandoned it. - -Mr. C. said, he was aware that the construction he contended for had -been called the British construction, and _Camillus's_ construction; -that he had himself, however, adopted more than two years ago, the first -time he had paid any attention to the article, upon no other impulse or -authority than his own judgment, on the perusal of it, and even before -he had ever heard of any other construction of it than that he contended -against, he was aware that there was a kind of patriotism which claimed -every thing for one's country, whether consistently with truth, justice, -and candor, or not; for himself, he had no pretensions to such -patriotism. He believed Mr. Jay had none, and if he was convinced that -the American construction of this article was unfounded, he thought it -for his honor, and the honor of this country, that he had abandoned it. - -When Mr. COIT had concluded-- - -Mr. S. SMITH rose and said, the subject then before the committee -appeared to him to be of an importance at least equal to the great -constitutional question which agitated the House during the present -session; it has had, and he trusted would continue to have, the same -calm attention paid to its discussion. He hoped and expected that it -would ultimately be determined with a view to the real interest of the -nation, under the existing state of things. - -When the Treaty was first published he had read it with attention, and -although he had not seen all those faults with which it has since been -charged, yet there was, to his view, so little good contained in it, -and so much of evil to be apprehended from it, that he had felt a hope -that the PRESIDENT would not have ratified it. He had been disappointed, -yet he had not a doubt but the PRESIDENT, after the most mature -consideration, had given his signature; being possessed, as he was, of -every information relative to a subject so very important, he could -better determine on the policy of its adoption than those who were less -informed. Still there were many articles, particularly the commercial, -which every man might judge of from the face of the instrument. On these -he did not hesitate to give an opinion: which was, that they promise not -one solitary advantage, and shackle our commerce in many important -points. He would not trouble the committee with going deeply into a -subject that has already been so ably discussed. He, however, could not -refrain from a few remarks on the right to countervail our extra duties -on tonnage of goods imported in foreign bottoms. He asked what would -this countervail be? Could any man tell? It was not specified in the -article; it was then discretionary with the British; discretionary with -a nation whose rule of right has always been the measure of its power, -whose conduct has invariably been to cramp and distress the commerce of -all other nations. To such a nation was it proper to trust a latitude of -that extent? Will she make her countervail oppressive and unjust? It is -more than probable she will, and if she should, what remedy have we? -None: for we are forbidden by the same article to legislate further on -the subject. - -He said he would take leave to explain the 13th article which relates to -the East India trade, and which it has been said gives such solid -advantage as to counterbalance all the evils arising out of the Treaty. -He had taken some pains to inform himself on this subject, and he had -found that the Americans, in common with all other nations, traded to -the British and other ports of India, and were every where received with -that sort of kindness which grows out of the interest that the vender -has in selling his goods for ready money, and to a great profit; that -our trade is so much the interest of the India Company, and of all its -officers and factors, as well as of the private traders residing there; -that it was ridiculous to suppose the India Company would prevent it; -and, if they should, what would be the evil? Little or none; for there -were other ports, belonging either to other European powers or to the -natives, in the neighborhood of all the English ports, who would receive -us with open arms, and supply us for our silver, on terms equal, or -nearly so. He then stated that our ships could now carry from one port -in India to another, to China, or to Europe; an employment that had been -found very lucrative. Under the Treaty they must proceed with whatever -they purchase in an English port direct to America. The article says, -His Majesty consents to your trade to India, and this is called a boon. -It appeared to him just as ridiculous as if his Majesty had said, he -consented to our going to Great Britain to purchase its manufactures. - -To enumerate the many faults he found with the Treaty, as well of -omission as commission, would take up too much of their precious time; -yet he trusted he should be excused for taking a short view of its -leading features. - -When the envoy was sent to Great Britain, he was principally to demand -restitution for the cruel depredations committed on our commerce. We -find that object attended to so vaguely that our best-informed men seem -doubtful whether much will ever be recovered under the Treaty; they find -that in every instance the loser must first pursue his remedy through -their tedious and expensive Courts. We find, that by fair construction, -we have acknowledged ourselves to have been the infractors of the Treaty -of Peace; for what was the ground on which some of the States placed -legal impediments to the recovery of British debts? Why, that Lord -Dorchester had refused to deliver up or pay for the negroes which, by -that Treaty, ought to have been restored, and which slaves would have -assisted their masters by their labor to pay those debts; yet we see no -mention of them in the Treaty; and we find, to our surprise, men, since -this Treaty, defending the construction lately put on the Treaty of -Peace by the British, and which had never before been heard of; thus -acquiescing in the charge of our being the first aggressors. But this -only relates to our honor, and of course can be of little consequence to -a nation whose rule of conduct is to submit to every thing, provided, -that on the whole account, there appears to be a balance of profit in -its favor. - -After having thus formed his opinion relative to the Treaty, his next -inquiry was, is the Treaty constitutional? On that point he had held -himself open to conviction, and waited its discussion. He had not heard -any gentleman declare it unconstitutional, except one, (Mr. PAGE,) who -seemed to give his opinion as if he still doubted; and having carefully -considered the subject, he was now of opinion that there was nothing -directly repugnant to the constitution in the instrument. He then -inquired whether, under the existing state of things, the Treaty ought -to be rejected? whether it contained stipulations so extremely injurious -to the United States as ought to induce the House of Representatives to -reject a compact made by the other branches of the Government? In the -ten first articles, which are permanent, he found some objections. The -third article, which, like many others, cannot be well understood, seems -to say that goods imported in British bottoms to the ports of the Lakes, -shall pay extra duty. If this be a true construction, it will then be -necessary to repeal our restraining duties, to make the Treaty by law -consistent with the constitution, which requires that all duties shall -be equal. The tenth article ties our hands against sequestration, a -power which ought not to be exercised, except on some very extraordinary -occasions; yet it was a power which, considering our relative situation -to Great Britain, it was imprudent to part with; still, on fair -consideration, he did not find that there was sufficient cause, on the -account, to reject the Treaty, in the situation we are now placed. The -residue will expire in two or three years. - - -TUESDAY, April 26. - -_Execution of British Treaty._ - -Mr. DWIGHT FOSTER observed, that as the subject before the committee had -been minutely discussed, it was not to be expected any new arguments, -either on the one side or the other, would be adduced. Hitherto, he had -been silent--though silent, he had not been inattentive--he had listened -with candor to every thing which had been offered; he had formed his -opinion upon serious deliberation, and was ready to give it whenever the -question should be taken. - -When the resolution requesting the PRESIDENT to lay before the House a -copy of the instructions, correspondence, and other documents relative -to this Treaty, was under consideration, Mr. F. observed, that he had -intended to have expressed his sentiments on the subject; but the great -length of time which was spent in that discussion, and the extreme -impatience discovered by many members to have the question taken, -induced him, as it might several others, to be content with expressing a -silent vote, as he did with the minority, on that occasion. This he was -the more willing to do, as it was then well known that the Treaty itself -would be before the House; that some appropriations would be requisite, -on their part, to carry it into effect; and, it was not to be doubted -but every gentleman who wished to express his opinion would have an -opportunity. The time had now arrived, and several days had been spent -already, he believed not unprofitably, in deliberating on an instrument -which had been the cause of great agitation in the United States. - -He was heretofore one of those who considered the negotiation as -advisable; it appeared to him the only means by which the horrors of war -were to be avoided. He therefore rejoiced when the PRESIDENT appointed -an Envoy for the purpose of negotiation; nor did he yet find any reason -to apprehend the measure was injudicious. Far otherwise. He believed it -was right, proper, and advisable; and that the result would prove highly -advantageous and fortunate for our country. He further said, that he had -critically examined the various articles of the Treaty; that he had -weighed the arguments for and against them, jointly and severally; that -he had considered them all with the attention their importance required; -and though, in some instances, we might have wished an extension of -advantages on our side, he was bound, in conscience, to declare that he -thought the Treaty as beneficial to us as we had a right to expect. - -The right of the PRESIDENT, by and with the advice and consent of the -Senate, to make Treaties, is a principle clearly defined by the -constitution. Not a single power delegated by the constitution to any -one branch of the Government is defined in terms more explicit, or less -liable to be misunderstood, than those which define the Treaty-making -power of the United States; and, during the whole course of the former -and present debates, Mr. F. observed, he had not been able to raise a -doubt in his own mind on the subject. The Treaty under consideration had -been duly made and ratified by the proper authority, constituted for -this purpose by the people of the United States; as such it was now -before the committee and demanded their serious attention and respect. -The subject was allowed by all to be of importance. To him it appeared -more momentous than any other which, at any time since the establishment -of the Government, had engrossed the attention of Congress. He viewed it -not as a question of peace or war only, but as involving questions of -far greater magnitude. He meant the present unexampled prosperity of -this country, our political happiness, our excellent constitution, and -probably, in its consequences, the existence of the national Government. - -Mr. KITCHELL said, he could throw no new light upon the subject under -discussion; he wished only to express a few ideas which would lead him -to support the resolution in its present form. He did not believe the -Treaty to be that box of Pandora, which was to scatter evils of every -kind upon the land. He believed there were stipulations in favor of the -United States, as well as in favor of Great Britain; and when the -Ministers of the two nations enter into contract, it must be expected -that stipulations will be agreed to on each side which will not appear -perfectly satisfactory to either, as certain concessions must be made on -both sides. - -He would mention only the probable consequences of rejecting the Treaty. -The disposition of the two nations towards each other at the time of -entering into negotiation was well known. The spoliations and injuries -done to the American vessels had wound up American resentment to the -highest pitch. Happily for America, Britain saw cause to change her -system of aggression. He believed, with some other gentlemen, that -Britain had not only formed the plan of crushing the rising liberties of -France, but also of extending her views to America; but, from a reverse -of fortune, she found it necessary to employ all her resources against -France. There was another thing, the people of England were clamorous on -account of the injuries done to the vessels of America; they were seen -to be unjust, and were publicly reprobated. These circumstances were -favorable to our negotiation, and he believed they could at no time have -got a better Treaty, than at the time the present was agreed upon. - -He said, they had only three alternatives. Either to give aid to the -Treaty, continue to bear the insults of Great Britain, or else to -determine resolutely on the dernier resort, war. - -Mr. GRISWOLD said, that in his opinion, the extensive view which the -committee were taking of the merits of the Treaty with Great Britain was -unwarranted by the Constitution of the United States; that he did not -believe any part of the Treaty-making power had been delegated to the -House of Representatives; and that the committee might with as much -propriety examine the merits of the constitution itself, for the purpose -of deciding whether they would execute it or not, as to examine the -Treaty in the manner which had been adopted in the committee. He had, on -a former occasion, delivered his opinions on that subject, and he would -not attempt to repeat them; but since the committee had thought proper -to take an extensive view of the merits of the Treaty, he would follow -the example which had been set him, and submit a few observations upon -that subject--more particularly as he believed that no discussion would -prove injurious to that instrument. He should not, however, attempt to -take a very extensive view of the subject, as gentlemen who had preceded -him had exhausted almost every part of the subject and left little to be -said at that period of the debate. - -Mr. G. said the Treaty embraced three great objects: - -1. The execution of those parts of the Treaty of 1783, which remained -unexecuted. - -2. The settlement of disputes. - -3. Stipulations for regulating the commercial and other intercourse -between the two nations. - -He said that it would be agreed on every side of the House that these -objects were important; and if they had been justly and fairly secured -by the stipulations of the Treaty, it would not be said that the -committee ought to feel dissatisfied with that instrument. He believed -that this was really the case, and that the United States had no just -cause to complain of the terms therein contained. - -Several objections, however, had been made to that part of the Treaty -which provided for the execution of the Treaty of 1783. It had been said -that this Treaty did not provide for every part of the Treaty of Peace -which remained unexecuted; and that conditions were annexed to the -execution of those parts of that Treaty which had been provided for -highly injurious to the interest of the United States. He said, if those -objections were well founded, they formed a very serious objection to -the present Treaty: but he could not find them by comparing or examining -the two Treaties. The only article of the Treaty of Peace which it was -said had been violated by the British Government, and was not provided -for by the present Treaty, was that which respected the negroes and -other property of the American inhabitants. He said he would not detain -the committee with many remarks on this part of the subject, as it had -been very fully and ably explained by gentlemen who had gone before him: -he only mentioned it for the purpose of reading that part of the journal -of Mr. Adams, one of the American negotiators of the peace, which -immediately related to this subject. The same journal had been already -read by different gentlemen, in detached parts, but he wished to bring -the whole journal at one view before the committee. He said, however, -that he ought to repeat what had been already said on the floor, that -the article in question did not want any exterior aid to assist the -committee with an explanation. The words of the article were certain and -explicit; they declared that the evacuation should be made "without -carrying away any negroes or other property belonging to the American -inhabitants;" and as it was universally agreed that the negroes who had -been carried away consisted either of those who had fled from their -masters during the war, on a promise of emancipation, or of those who -had been taken as plunder in the period of hostility, no doubt could -exist but that in all those cases the property in the negroes was -changed; that they were no longer the property of American inhabitants, -and of course it was no violation of the Treaty to carry them away. And -whatever might have since been said on that subject, he was convinced -that the American Commissioners, at the close of the negotiation, had no -idea of including in the Treaty of Peace a stipulation to secure a -restoration of negroes then in the possession of the British army. To -evince this fact, he said he would now read the journal he had before -alluded to. [He read some paragraphs from that journal.] - -Mr. G. said that it appeared, from the journal he had read, on what -ground the negotiation respecting the negroes stood. The British agent -claimed a restitution of confiscated estates. To rebut this demand, the -American Commissioners, among other things, claimed compensation for -negroes and other property which had been taken as plunder in different -periods of the war. Finding, however, that no agreement could be -obtained on these contested points, they were all relinquished as -impracticable; and the claim for negroes, which had been made for no -other purpose than to rebut the claim for confiscated estates, was given -up of course, and, at the moment of signing the Treaty, the article in -question was inserted--not to secure a restitution of property which had -been changed by the events of the war, but to secure by stipulation, -that the evacuations should be made without any destruction, or carrying -away property really belonging to the American inhabitants. He said that -it had always been a matter of surprise to him that any gentleman had -put a different construction on this article; and he thought the parties -had done wisely in excluding from the present Treaty a claim which did -not possess even the shadow of justice. - -Mr. GALLATIN said he would not follow some of the gentlemen who had -preceded him, by dwelling upon the discretion of the Legislature--a -question which had already been the subject of their deliberation, and -been decided by a solemn vote. Gentlemen who had been in the minority -on that question might give any construction they pleased to the -declaratory resolution of the House; they might again repeat that, to -refuse to carry the Treaty into effect, was a breach of the public -faith, which they conceived as being pledged by the PRESIDENT and -Senate. This had been the ground on which a difference of opinion had -existed since the beginning of the discussion. It was because the House -thought the faith of the nation could not, on those subjects submitted -to the power of Congress, be pledged by any constituted authority other -than the Legislature, that they had resolved that, in all such cases, it -was their right and duty to consider the expediency of carrying a Treaty -into effect. If the House thought the faith of the nation already -pledged, they could not claim any discretion; there would be no room -left to deliberate upon the expediency of the thing. The resolution now -under consideration was merely "that it was expedient to carry the -British Treaty into effect," and not whether they were bound by national -faith to do it. He would, therefore, consider the question of expediency -alone; and, thinking as he did, that the House had full discretion on -the subject, he conceived that there was as much responsibility in -deciding in the affirmative as in rejecting the resolution; that they -would be equally answerable for the consequences that might follow from -either. - -It was, however, true that there was a great difference between the -situation of this country in the year 1794, when a negotiator was -appointed, and that in which we were at present; and that consequences -would follow the refusal to carry into effect the Treaty in its present -stage, which would not have attended a refusal to negotiate, and enter -into such a Treaty. The question of expediency, therefore, assumed -before them a different and more complex shape than when before the -negotiator, the Senate, or the PRESIDENT. The Treaty, in itself, and -abstractedly considered, might be injurious; it might be such an -instrument as, in the opinion of the House, ought not to have been -adopted by the Executive; and yet, such as it was, they might think it -expedient, under the present circumstances, to carry it into effect. He -would, therefore, first take a view of the provisions of the Treaty -itself, and in the next place, supposing it injurious, consider, in case -it was not carried into effect, what would be the natural consequences -of such refusal. - -The provisions of the Treaty relate either to the adjustment of past -differences or to the future intercourse of the two nations. The -differences now existing between Great Britain and this country arose -either from the non-execution of some articles of the Treaty of Peace, -or from the effects of the present European war. The complaints of -Britain in relation to the Treaty of 1783 were confined to the legal -impediments thrown by the several States in the way of the recovery of -British debts. The late Treaty had provided adequate remedy on that -subject; the United States were bound to make full and complete -compensation for any losses arising from that source, and every ground -of complaint on the part of Great Britain was removed. - -Having thus done full justice to the other nation, America had a right -to expect that equal attention should be paid to her claims arising from -infractions of the Treaty of Peace, viz: compensation for the negroes -carried away by the British; restoration of the Western posts, and -indemnification for their detention. - -On the subject of the first claim, which had been objected to as -groundless, he would observe, that he was not satisfied that the -construction given by the British Government to that article of the -Treaty was justified even by the letter of the article. That -construction rested on the supposition that slaves came under the -general denomination of booty, and were alienated the moment they fell -in the possession of an enemy, so that all those who were in the hands -of the British when the Treaty of Peace was signed, must be considered -as British, and not American property, and were not included in the -article. It would however appear by recurring to _Vattel_, when speaking -of the right of _postliminium_, that slaves were not considered as part -of the booty which was alienated by the act of capture, and that they -were ranked rather with real property, to the profits of which only the -captors were entitled. Be that as it may, there was no doubt that the -construction given by America was that which had been understood by the -parties at the time of making the Treaty. The journals of Mr. Adams, -quoted by a gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. COIT) proved this fully; -for when he says that the insertion of this article was alone worth the -journey of Mr. Laurens from London, can it be supposed that he would -have laid so much stress on a clause which, according to the new -construction now attempted to be given, meant only that the British -would commit no new act of hostility? would not carry away slaves at -that time in possession of Americans? Congress had recognized that -construction by adopting the resolution which had been already quoted, -and which was introduced upon the motion of Mr. Alexander Hamilton; and -it had not been denied that the British Ministry, during Mr. Adams's -embassy, had also agreed to it. - -But when our negotiator had, for the sake of peace, waived that claim; -when he had also abandoned the right which America had to demand an -indemnification for the detention of the posts, although he had conceded -the right of a similar nature, which Great Britain had for the detention -of debt; when he had thus given up every thing which might be supposed -to be of a doubtful nature, it might have been hoped that our last -claim--a claim on which there was not and there never had been any -dispute--the Western posts should have been restored according to the -terms of the Treaty of Peace. Upon what ground the British had -insisted, and our negotiator conceded, that this late restitution should -be saddled with new conditions, which made no part of the original -contract, Mr. G. was at a loss to know. British traders were all -allowed, by the new Treaty, to remain within the posts without becoming -citizens of the United States, and to carry on trade and commerce with -the Indians living within our boundaries, without being subject to any -control from our Government. In vain was it said, that if that clause -had not been inserted we would have found it our interest to effect it -by our own laws. Of this we were alone competent judges; if that -condition was harmless at present, it was not possible to foresee -whether, under future circumstances, it would not prove highly -injurious; and, whether harmless or not, it was not less a permanent and -new condition imposed upon us. But the fact was, that by the -introduction of that clause, by obliging us to keep within our -jurisdiction, as British subjects, the very men who had been the -instruments used by Great Britain to promote Indian wars on our -frontiers,--by obliging us to suffer those men to continue their -commerce with Indians living in our territory, uncontrolled by those -regulations, which we had thought necessary, in order to restrain our -own citizens in their intercourse with these tribes, Great Britain had -preserved her full influence with the Indian nations; by a restoration -of the posts under that condition, we had lost the greatest advantage -that was expected from their possession, viz: future security against -the Indians. In the same manner had the British preserved the commercial -advantages which resulted from the occupancy of these posts, by -stipulating as a permanent condition a free passage for their goods -across our portages, without paying any duty. - -The remaining provisions of the Treaty had no connection with past -differences; they made no part of the Convention which had been the -avowed object of Mr. Jay's mission; they applied solely to the future -intercourse of the two nations as relating to commerce and navigation; -and had they been entirely omitted, our differences would have been -nevertheless adjusted. It was agreed on all hands, that so far as -related to our commerce with Great Britain, we wanted no Treaty. The -intercourse, although useful perhaps to both parties, was more -immediately necessary to England, and her own interest was a sufficient -pledge of her granting us at all times a perfect liberty of commerce to -her European ports. If we want to treat with her, it must be in order to -obtain some intercourse with her colonies, and some general security in -our navigation. - -The twelfth and thirteenth articles had been obtained by our negotiator -with a view to the first object. The twelfth article, however, which -related to our intercourse with the West Indies, was found, upon -examination, to be accompanied by a restriction of such a nature, that -what had been granted by Great Britain as a favor, was rejected by the -Senate as highly injurious. The thirteenth article, which related to the -East Indies, and remained part of the Treaty, was, like the twelfth, -conferring a favor limited by restrictions, and so far as he could -depend upon the opinion of the best-informed judges on that subject, -those restrictions put the trade in a more disadvantageous situation -than it was before the Treaty. As the West India article had declared -that we should not re-export any produce of those islands to Europe, so -the East India article, at the same time it granted us the privilege, -which we enjoyed before, and which we enjoyed because it was the -interest of the East India Company to grant it to us, that of being -admitted in the British seaports there, had forbidden our carrying any -articles from thence to any place except to America; which regulation -amounted to a total prohibition to export East India articles to China, -or to obtain freights back to Europe; and, upon the whole, he could not -help thinking, from what had fallen on that floor, and what he had heard -elsewhere from gentlemen of great commercial knowledge, that if the East -India commerce had been as generally understood in America as the West -India trade, that so much boasted of article would have met the same -fate in the Senate with the twelfth article. - -During the American war, in the year 1780, so fully convinced were the -neutral nations of the necessity of introducing that doctrine of free -bottom making free goods, that all of them, excepting Portugal, who was -in a state of vassalage to, and a mere appendage of Great Britain, had -united in order to establish the principle, and had formed for that -purpose the alliance known by the name of the Armed Neutrality. All the -belligerent powers, except England, had recognized and agreed to the -doctrine. England itself had been obliged, in some measure, to give for -a while a tacit acquiescence. America had completely, at the time, -admitted the principle, although they were then at war, [Mr. G. quoted -on this subject the Journals of Congress of the year 1780, page 210, and -of the year 1781, page 80,] and it had been introduced in every other -Treaty we had concluded since our existence as a nation. Since the year -1780, every nation, so far as his knowledge went, had refused to enter -into a Treaty of Commerce with England, unless that provision was -inserted. Russia, for that reason, would not renew their Treaty, which -had expired in 1786, although he believed that, during the present war, -and in order to answer the ends of the war, they had formed a temporary -convention, which he had not seen, but which, perhaps, did not include -that provision. England had consented to it in their Treaty with France -in 1788, and we were the first neutral nation who abandoned the common -cause, gave up the claim, and, by a positive declaration inserted in our -Treaty, had recognized the contrary doctrine. It had been said, that -under the present circumstances, it could not be expected that Great -Britain would give up the point: perhaps so; but the objection was not, -that our negotiator had not been able to obtain that doctrine, but that -he had consented to enter into a Treaty of Commerce (which we did not -want, and which had no connection with an adjustment of our differences -with Great Britain) without the principle contended for making part of -that Treaty. Unless we could obtain security for our navigation, we -wanted no Treaty; and the only provision which could give us that -security, should have been the _sine qua non_ of a Treaty. On the -contrary, we had disgusted all the other neutral nations of Europe, -without whose concert and assistance there was but little hope that we -should ever obtain that point, and we had taught Great Britain that we -were disposed to form the most intimate connections with her, even at -the expense of recognizing the principle the most fatal to the liberty -of commerce, and to the security of our navigation. - -Mr. G. was not going to enter into a discussion of the immorality of -sequestering private property. What could be more immoral than war? or -the plundering of the high seas legalized under the name of -privateering? Yet self-defence justified the first, and the necessity of -the case might, at least in some instances, and where it was the only -practicable mode of warfare left to a nation, apologize even for the -last. In the same manner the power of sequestration might be resorted -to, as the last weapon of self-defence, rather than to seek redress by -an appeal to arms. It was the last peace-measure that could be taken by -a nation; but the Treaty, by declaring that in case of national -differences it should not be resorted to, had deprived us of the power -of judging of its propriety, had rendered it an act of hostility, and -had effectually taken off that restraint which a fear of its exercise -laid upon Great Britain. - -Thus it appeared that, by the Treaty, we had promised full compensation -to England for every possible claim they might have against us, that we -had abandoned every claim of a doubtful nature, and that we had -consented to receive the posts, our claim to which was not disputed, -under new conditions and restrictions never before contemplated. That, -after having obtained, by those concessions, an adjustment of past -differences, we had entered into a new agreement, unconnected with those -objects, which had heretofore been subjects of discussion between the -two nations; and that, by that Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, we had -obtained no commercial advantage which we did not enjoy before; we had -obtained no security against future aggressions, no security in favor of -the freedom of our navigation, and we had parted with every pledge we -had in our hands, with every power of restriction, with every weapon of -self-defence, which was calculated to give us any security. - -From the review he had taken of the Treaty, and the opinions he had -expressed, Mr. G. said, it was hardly necessary for him to add that he -looked upon the instrument as highly injurious to the interests of the -United States, and that he earnestly wished it never had been made; but -whether, in its present stage, the House ought to refuse to carry it -into effect, and what would be the probable consequences of a refusal, -was a question which required the most serious attention, and which he -would now attempt to investigate. - -Should the Treaty be finally defeated, either new negotiations would be -more successful, or Great Britain would refuse to make a new -arrangement, and leave things in the situation in which they were, or -war would be the consequence. Mr. G. said that he would, in the course -of his observations, make some remarks on the last supposition; he did -not think that the first would be very probable at present, and he was -of opinion that, under the present circumstances, and until some change -took place in our own or in the relative political situation of the -European nations, it was to be apprehended that, in such a case, new -negotiations would either be rejected or prove unsuccessful. Such an -event would have perhaps followed a rejection of the Treaty even by the -Senate or by the PRESIDENT. After the negotiator employed by the United -States had once affixed his signature, it must have become very -problematical, unless he had exceeded his powers, whether a refusal to -sanction the contract he had made would not eventually defeat, at least -for a time, the prospect of a new Treaty. He conceived that the hopes of -obtaining better conditions, by a new negotiation, were much less in the -present stage of the business than they had been when the Treaty was in -its inchoate form before the Executive; and in order to have a just idea -of the consequences of a rejection at present, he would contemplate them -upon that supposition which appeared to him most probable, viz: that no -new Treaty would take place for a certain period of time. - -As he was not sensible that a single commercial advantage had been -obtained by the Treaty, he could not mention the loss of any, as a -mischief that would attend its rejection. If, however, the East India -article was supposed to be beneficial, it must, on the other hand, be -conceded that we had enjoyed every benefit arising from it for a number -of years, without Treaty, and consequently, because it was the interest -of the East India Company that we should enjoy them; and that it was not -probable that circumstances would so far change there, during the short -period to which that article was limited, as to induce that Company to -adopt a different policy towards us. - -But it was said that war must be the consequence of our delaying to -carry the Treaty into effect. Did the gentlemen mean that, if we -rejected the Treaty, if we did not accept the reparation there given to -us, in order to obtain redress, we had no alternative left but war? If -we must go to war in order to obtain reparation for insults and -spoliations on our trade, we must do it, even if we carry the present -Treaty into effect; for the Treaty gives us no reparation for the -aggressions committed since it was ratified, has not produced a -discontinuance of those acts of hostility, and gives us no security that -they shall be discontinued. But the argument of those gentlemen, who -supposed that America must go to war, applied to a final rejection of -the Treaty, and not to a delay. He did not propose to refuse the -reparation offered by the Treaty, and to put up with the aggressions -committed; he had agreed that that reparation, such as it was, was a -valuable article of the Treaty; he had agreed that, under the present -circumstances, a greater evil would follow a total rejection than an -acquiescence to the Treaty. The only measure which had been mentioned in -preference to the one now under discussion, was a suspension, a -postponement whilst the present spoliations continued, in hopes to -obtain for them a similar reparation, and assurances that they would -cease. - -But, was it meant to insinuate that it was the final intention of those -who pretended to wish only for a postponement, to involve this country -in a war? There was no period of the present European war at which it -would not have been weak and wicked to adopt such measures as must -involve America in the contest, unless forced into it for the sake of -self-defence; but, at this time, to think of it, would fall but little -short of madness. The whole American nation would rise in opposition to -the idea; and it might, at least, have been recollected that war could -not be declared except by Congress, and that two of the branches of -Government were sufficient to check the other in any supposed attempt of -that kind. - -But to the cry of war, the alarmists did not fail to add that of -confusion; and they had declared, even on this floor, that if the -resolution was not adopted, Government would be dissolved. Government -dissolved in case a postponement took place! This idea was too absurd to -deserve a direct answer. But he would ask those gentlemen, by whom the -Government was to be dissolved? Certainly not by those who would vote -against the resolution; for, although they were not, perhaps, fortunate -enough to have obtained the confidence of the gentleman who voted -against them, still, it must be agreed, that those who succeeded in -their wishes, who defeated a measure they disliked, would not wish to -destroy that Government, which they held, so far, in their hands, as to -be able to carry their own measures. For them to dissolve the Government -would be to dissolve their own power. By whom, then, he would ask again, -was the Government to be dissolved? The gentlemen must answer, by -themselves, or they must declare that they meant nothing but to alarm. -Was it really the language of those men, who professed to be, who -distinguished themselves by the self-assumed appellation of friends to -order, that if they did not succeed in all their measures, they would -overset the Government? And had all their professions been only a veil -to hide their love of power? a pretence to cover their ambition? Did -they mean, that the first event which would put an end to their own -authority should be the last act of Government? As to himself, he did -not believe that they had such an intention; he had too good an opinion -of their patriotism to permit himself to admit such an idea for a single -moment; but he thought himself justifiable in entertaining a belief, -that some amongst them, in order to carry a favorite, and what they -thought to be an advantageous measure, meant to spread an alarm, which -they did not feel; and he had no doubt that many had contracted such a -habit of carrying every measure of Government as they pleased, that they -really thought that every thing must be thrown into confusion the moment -they were thwarted in a matter of importance. He hoped that experience -would, in future, cure their fears. But, at all events, be the wishes -and intentions of the members of this House what they may, it was not in -their power to dissolve the Government. The people of the United States, -from one end of the continent to the other, were strongly attached to -their constitution; they would restrain and punish the excesses of any -party, of any set of men in the Government, who would be guilty of the -attempt; and on them he would rest as a full security against every -endeavor to destroy our Union, our constitution, or our Government. - -But, although he was not afraid of a dissolution, he felt how highly -desirable a more general union of sentiment would be; he felt the -importance of an agreement of opinion between the different branches of -Government, and even between the members of the same branch. He would -sacrifice much to obtain that object; it had been one of the most urging -motives with him to be in favor, not of a rejection, but only of a -suspension, of a delay. But even as a matter of opinion, it was -difficult to say which mode of proceeding, in this House, would best -accord with the general sentiments of the people. So far as related to -the petitions before them, the number of signatures against the Treaty -exceeded, at the moment he was speaking, the number of those in favor of -the Treaty. - -True it was, that an alarm which had produced a combination, had lately -taken place amongst the merchants of this and some other seaports. What -effect it would have, and how successful they would eventually be, in -spreading this alarm amongst the people at large, he could not tell; but -there were circumstances accompanying their petition, which, in his -opinion, much diminished the weight they otherwise might have had. They -had, undoubtedly, a right to petition upon every public measure, where -they thought themselves interested, and their petitions would deserve -equal regard, with those of their fellow-citizens throughout the United -States. But on this occasion, in order to create an alarm, in order to -induce the people to join them, in order to force the House to pass the -laws relative to the Treaty, they had formed a dangerous combination, -and affected to cease insuring vessels, purchasing produce, and -transacting any business. A gentleman from New York (Mr. WILLIAMS) had -been so much alarmed himself, that he had predicted a fall in the price -of every kind of produce, and seems, indeed, to have supposed, that the -clamors of a few individuals here would either put an end to, or satisfy -the wants of those nations which depended on us for supplies of -provisions. Yet, it had so happened, and it was a complete proof that -the whole was only an alarm, that whilst they were debating, the price -of flour, which was of very dull sale two weeks ago, had risen in equal -proportion with the supposed fears of the purchasers. - -He could not help considering the cry of war, the threats of a -dissolution of Government, and the present alarm, as designed for the -same purpose, that of making an impression on the fears of this House. -It was through the fear of being involved in a war, that the negotiation -with Great Britain had originated; under the impression of fear, the -Treaty had been negotiated and signed; a fear of the same danger, that -of war, had promoted its ratification; and now, every imaginary mischief -which could alarm our fears, was conjured up, in order to deprive us of -that discretion, which this House thought they had a right to exercise, -and in order to force us to carry the Treaty into effect. - -_The Son of the Marquis Lafayette._ - -Mr. LIVINGSTON, Chairman of the committee for carrying into effect a -resolution respecting the son of the Marquis LAFAYETTE, reported that he -had arrived in this country; that he had received the patronage of the -PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; that he was in New Jersey for education, -and to show that he had no occasion for pecuniary assistance, the -committee subjoin a well-written, affecting letter to the Chairman of -the committee, in answer to one from him, expressive of his gratitude -for the kind attention shown to him by the Legislature of the United -States, by the PRESIDENT, and to every person to whom he was made known; -that he had no wants; that he was as happy as he could be; that if he -should in future have occasion for assistance, he would apply to -Congress, who had been so kind and attentive to his welfare.[77] - - -THURSDAY, April 28. - -_Execution of British Treaty._ - -The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the -state of the Union; when, the resolution for carrying the British Treaty -into effect being under consideration---- - -Mr. PRESTON rose and spoke as follows: Mr. Chairman, I voted for the -question yesterday, for the first time since this discussion began. I -was then prepared to give my opinion, but, since the House has thought -proper to devote another day to this important subject, I will take the -liberty to offer my sentiments, and claim the indulgence of the -committee for this purpose. I make this claim for their indulgence with -the more confidence, as I have heretofore occupied but little of the -time of the House on any occasion, and as I mean to be short on the -present--not intending to take that comprehensive view of the subject -which many gentlemen have done who have preceded me. With this apology I -will proceed, conceiving, however that no apology is necessary on this -or any other occasion where our duty impels us to come forward. But I -must confess it has been painful to me to hear the recriminations that -have taken place on this occasion. I had hoped, on a subject so -important, on which it is said the peace and happiness of this our -common country rests--whose welfare must be equally dear to all--that -temperance and calmness would have marked our deliberations; that all -our efforts would have been made to enlighten the minds and convince the -judgments of each other, instead of lessening one another in our -estimation, and that of our constituents, by dishonorable imputations, -and which, I trust, every member would spurn. As to myself, Mr. -Chairman, I stand here regardless of any imputations that ill-nature may -cast upon me in this House, or abuse which may be conferred without -doors. I shall not be deterred from pronouncing that opinion which my -best reflections have enabled me to form. - -Sir, in considering this subject, I had hoped every information -possessed by any of the departments of Government would have been freely -afforded us; and I cannot but lament that the PRESIDENT, by a too -strict adherence to what he has supposed to be his constitutional duty, -refused the request of this House for certain papers, which request -seemed to me not only proper, but innocent--proper, because they might -have afforded information that would reconcile many of the objections -entertained of the Treaty, and finally produce its adoption; it was -innocent, because, if there was no unfair procedure respecting this -business, why not publish the transaction to the world--at all events to -the Representatives of the people, who, it is acknowledged by all, were -not only to act on the Treaty in some way, but were intrusted with the -management of some of the dearest rights of their fellow-countrymen? If, -then, the people confide in us such important concerns, might not the -Executive have reposed some degree of confidence, and complied with a -request so decorously and respectfully made? But he has told us his duty -forbids it. We are then reduced to the necessity to judge of the thing -from the face of it, without the wished-for information. And I must -confess it has always presented such a hideous and deformed aspect to my -mind, that I have ever disliked it--which, together with the unfriendly -sentiments of my constituents to it, has produced my prejudices. But I -had determined, as the PRESIDENT and Senate had ratified it, and many -approved it, to keep my mind open for every information the subject was -capable of. As, then, none has been offered to operate a change of my -opinion, and as the most likely source is shut against us, my -prejudices, instead of being lessened, have become firmly fixed in the -opposition. - -But we are told the British committed no infraction of the Treaty of -1783, by withholding the posts; for we, having thrown legal impediments -in the way of the recovery of their debts, became the first infractors -thereof, whereby they were left free to comply or not. Let us, for a -moment, inquire into this fact. By the 4th article of that Treaty, -creditors on either side were to meet with no legal impediment to the -recovery of their debts. By the 7th article of the same Treaty, His -Majesty was, with all convenient speed, to withdraw his armies and -garrisons from every post and place. Now, sir, on comparing these -articles, can it be presumed by any one that the latter stipulation was -to remain unexecuted until the creditors recovered their debts? Was it -to remain as a pledge for the performance of the other? No one can -entertain the idea for a moment. Suppose the creditors had gone on in -the collection of their debts without interruption, would it be said -that the stipulations of the 7th article would be suspended until all -the creditors were wholly satisfied? It is absurd, particularly when we -reflect that the commissioners who negotiated that Treaty must have -contemplated the recovery of those debts by lawsuits; therefore, if the -latter clause was intended to coerce the former, we would certainly not -have had the insertion of the words "with all convenient speed," which -implies an early compliance. If the opposite construction was just, I -would venture to say, the British Government would never have agreed to -surrender the posts, but in consequence of such concessions as it now -gets; for it would have the advantages of the fur trade, and the faith -of this country pledged for the payment of the debts, which were -accumulating by interest. This was a pleasing situation; but what was -the situation of the British debtors? Deprived of their negroes, which -were to be returned by the Treaty; deprived of the advantages of the -trade with the Indians, whereby they might be enabling themselves to -discharge those debts; harassed and worn down with taxation, to support -the Indian wars excited by their creditors. In this situation of things, -was it not natural for them to look around for security or indemnity -against these evils; and would any thing more naturally present itself, -than withholding the payment of the money to the very cause of these -evils? None, sir; and I cannot conceive it so dishonorable as some -gentlemen pretend to view it. - -But, sir, I will endeavor to show that the laws which were enacted by -States for prohibiting the recovery of the British debts, were not an -infraction of the Treaty of 1783. By the little book, which the -gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. HILLHOUSE) says is so precious, and -which he hopes will be preserved for some time to come, we find that Mr. -JEFFERSON has, in consequence of complaints from the British Minister, -respecting the impediments to the recovery of British debts, inquired -into the facts, in those States where the complaints originated; the -result of these inquiries was, that though there were State laws -prohibiting, yet a number of gentlemen, of the first abilities and great -integrity,--generally professional characters, and who have been engaged -in proceedings of this kind,--certify, that wherever attempts were made -to recover these debts, they have met with no more obstruction than -other creditors. Besides, those gentlemen were generally of opinion -that, on the final ratification of the Treaty of 1783, it repealed all -laws at variance with it. If, then, it had such a powerful attribute as -to repeal former laws, it follows as a consequence, that subsequent laws -opposing it were mere nullities. These opinions were cited the other day -by a gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK,) and relied on. I hope -they will have their due weight on the application now to be made of -them. So that, on the whole, it does appear to me the British creditor -had nothing more to struggle with than other creditors had, except the -well-founded prejudices imbibed by our countrymen against that nation, -which, though the laws might in some measure correct, they could never -eradicate. That these prejudices have produced irregularities in many -instances and delay of collections, I have no doubt; but from the nature -of things it is well known no foresight or protection could guard -against it. Indeed, they might have been expected, for can it be -supposed that men would stand calmly and see their families reduced to -penury and want by an unrelenting British creditor, who had aided to -impair the very means of his debtor to pay, and whose Government was by -their acts daily increasing the evils, by exciting the Indians to war -against us, whereby our citizens were borne down with burdens to defend -themselves? I say, would not such reflections, with ruin before our -eyes, produce a degree of irritation in the most calm amongst us? I owe -none of these debts, I never did, and I never will, if I can help it. I -spurn the idea of involving my country in a debt of an incalculable -amount, when millions of them never received any benefit thereby. It is -wrong, it is unjust. I again repeat, that it does appear to me, on an -impartial view of this subject, that the United States are not -chargeable with the first infraction of the Treaty of 1783, and that -therefore, we are not bound now to enter into a compact which appears to -me to be warranted neither by the principles of reciprocity nor justice. - -But I undertake to say, and with some confidence too, that Great Britain -committed the first infraction of that Treaty, by withholding the posts, -and also carrying away the negroes, which she had expressly stipulated -to give up; and, to my astonishment, it is now contended that the taking -away the negroes was not a violation of the Treaty, as they came into -their possession by the rights of war, and being deemed property were -vested in the captors. Admit, for a moment, they were that kind of -property, and they became as much the property of their captors as any -they had possessed themselves of in the same way, what then? Certainly, -that it followed of course, they had a right to dispose of them in any -way they chose, either to emancipate them, retain them in slavery for -their own use, or return them to their original owners. Which of these -alternatives have they elected to do? [Here he read the following -sentence from the Treaty of 1783.] "And His Britannic Majesty shall, -with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction or -carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, -withdraw all his armies," &c., &c. Now, sir, was not the carrying away -the negroes a violation of this article? All America once thought so. No -other construction ever entered the head of man till this Treaty -appeared; owners so construed it, and in virtue thereof made demands. -Congress, and even "_Camillus_," once thought so, and so they declared -it in the most solemn manner. And so it would be construed by all -descriptions of people, from the schoolboy to the Senator, to use the -expression of the gentleman from New York, (Mr. COOPER,) had our minds -remained in the same state they were in a dozen years ago. Sir, if there -be modern constructions of the constitution, I will venture to say there -is the same of Treaties. But another clause of the same article -justifies my construction, to wit: the leaving in all fortifications -the American artillery that may be therein. Gentlemen will hardly say -this means fortifications garrisoned by American soldiery; this would be -absurd, for it is pretty well known that American artillery guarded -itself better than British Treaties did. Was not this artillery, which -had fallen into the hands of the enemy, a vested property, till the -chances of war or the Treaty had made a disposal thereof? Unquestionably -it was. Were not the archives, records, deeds, &c., which had also -fallen into the hands of the enemy, their property? There can be no -doubt of it. Yet we find these things stipulated to be given up. - -If, then, they chose to yield one species of property, might they not -another? But, it is said, the negroes were not our property at the time -of signing the Treaty; so neither did the archives, records, &c., belong -to the States--they were the property of the enemy; but certainly the -British Minister had as much right to stipulate for the return of the -one as for the other, and he has in as explicit terms. This must have -been the understanding of the commissioners who negotiated that Treaty, -although one of them has been traced to his slumbers, the evening before -the sealing the Treaty, for a different construction. So that, in this -instance, the British have certainly committed the first infraction, by -carrying off the negroes. And is it not extraordinary that, -notwithstanding this, no claim is made for them, and yet we are bound to -pay the British debts, when the very means of doing it are taken from -the debtor by the creditor? Sir, this is a serious oppression, and -though not of a very great magnitude, will nevertheless be felt in an -interesting manner, and if submitted to will be so under much -disquietude. - -But the rejection of the Treaty is tremendously alarming, indeed. War, -and war's alarms, are echoed on all sides. We shall be attacked on one -side by savage barbarity; up the Mediterranean by Algerine cruelty; our -commerce prostrated, and our cities laid under contribution by the -British. In short, the dogs of war let loose on us, and America, once -happy America, will become the scene of bloodshed and desolation. Great -God! What man is there here that can be wicked enough to involve his -country in such incalculable miseries? Who has firmness enough to meet -so foul a deed? Particularly when we reflect on the dreadful act we are -about to do, that will produce such scenes of horror and devastation! -namely, refuse to accept a bargain derogatory to our national honor! -This, sir, is to produce the dreadful catastrophe. But the measure of -woe is not yet filled. There will be disunion; and American citizens -will become American enemies, imbruing their hands in each other's -blood. Civil wars will rend our happy country. Heavens! What a shock to -suffering humanity here will be! And all about some commercial -regulations and political differences with a foreign nation, who, I -believe, in principle, is our inveterate enemy. - -Mr. Chairman, I am one who, though I have but little confidence in the -British Government, yet I cannot believe that she, or any other nation -on earth, is so arrogant, and lost to every principle of humanity, as to -go into such dreadful excesses, because we will not enter into a -contract that will suit her interest. I fear war as much as any man, -when a pretext is given; but can it be seriously said a rejection of -this Treaty is a cause of war? I cannot believe that such can possibly -be the event. - -As to disunion, it is idle to talk of it; for I do believe if, instead -of a minority of this House, every man in it were to return home full of -spleen and disappointment, and were to use every exertion, every -artifice in their power, to bring about a disunion, they would fail in -so traitorous an attempt. The people, sir, would scoff them, would turn -them out of office, and place therein more deserving characters. - -As then, Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that war or disunion will be the -result of a rejection of the Treaty, and as I think it is one from which -we ought to withhold our assent, I must give it my negative. And if, in -this, time shall prove me wrong, I shall lament the error with the -greatest sincerity, but I shall have the pleasing consolation to know it -was an error of the head, and not of the heart. - -When Mr. PRESTON had taken his seat-- - -Mr. AMES rose, and addressed the Chair as follows: - -Mr. Chairman: I entertain the hope, perhaps a rash one, that my strength -will hold me out to speak a few minutes. - -In my judgment, a right decision will depend more on the temper and -manner with which we may prevail on ourselves to contemplate the -subject, than upon the development of any profound political principles, -or any remarkable skill in the application of them. If we should succeed -to neutralize our inclinations, we should find less difficulty than we -have to apprehend in surmounting all our objections. - -The suggestion, a few days ago, that the House manifested symptoms of -heat and irritation, was made and retorted as if the charge ought to -create surprise, and would convey reproach. Let us be more just to -ourselves, and to the occasion. Let us not affect to deny the existence -and the intrusion of some portion of prejudice and feeling into the -debate, when, from the very structure of our nature, we ought to -anticipate the circumstance as a probability, and when we are admonished -by the evidence of our senses that it is a fact. - -How can we make professions for ourselves, and offer exhortations to the -House, that no influence should be felt but that of duty, and no guide -respected but that of the understanding, while the peal to rally every -passion of man is continually ringing in our ears. - -Our understandings have been addressed, it is true, and with ability and -effect; but, I demand, has any corner of the heart been left unexplored? -It has been ransacked to find auxiliary arguments, and when that -attempt failed, to awaken the sensibilities that would require none. -Every prejudice and feeling have been summoned to listen to some -particular style of address; and yet we seem to believe, and to consider -a doubt as an affront, that we are strangers to any influence but that -of unbiased reason. - -It would be strange that a subject which has roused in turn all the -passions of the country, should be discussed without the interference of -any of our own. We are men, and, therefore, not exempt from those -passions; as citizens and Representatives, we feel the interest that -must excite them. The hazard of great interests cannot fail to agitate -strong passions: we are not disinterested, it is impossible we should be -dispassionate. The warmth of such feelings may becloud the judgment, -and, for a time, pervert the understanding; but the public sensibility -and our own, has sharpened the spirit of inquiry, and given an animation -to the debate. The public attention has been quickened to mark the -progress of the discussion, and its judgment, often hasty and erroneous -on first impressions, has become solid and enlightened at last. Our -result will, I hope, on that account, be the safer and more mature, as -well as more accordant with that of the nation. The only constant agents -in political affairs are the passions of men--shall we complain of our -nature? Shall we say that man ought to have been made otherwise? It is -right already, because He, from whom we derive our nature, ordained it -so; and because thus made, and thus acting, the cause of truth and the -public good is the more surely promoted. - -But an attempt has been made to produce an influence of a nature more -stubborn and more unfriendly to truth. It is very unfairly pretended -that the constitutional right of this House is at stake, and to be -asserted and preserved only by a vote in the negative. We hear it said -that this is a struggle for liberty, a manly resistance against the -design to nullify this assembly, and to make it a cypher in the -Government. That the PRESIDENT and Senate, the numerous meetings in the -cities, and the influence of the general alarm of the country, are the -agents and instruments of a scheme of coercion and terror, to force the -Treaty down our throats, though we loathe it, and in spite of the -clearest convictions of duty and conscience. - -It is necessary to pause here and inquire, whether suggestions of this -kind be not unfair in their very texture and fabric, and pernicious in -all their influences? They oppose an obstacle in the path of inquiry, -not simply discouraging, but absolutely insurmountable. They will not -yield to argument; for, as they were not reasoned up, they cannot be -reasoned down. They are higher than a Chinese wall in truth's way, and -built of materials that are indestructible. While this remains, it is in -vain to argue; it is in vain to say to this mountain, be thou cast into -the sea. For, I ask of the men of knowledge of the world, whether they -would not hold him for a blockhead that should hope to prevail in an -argument whose scope and object it is to mortify the self-love of the -expected proselyte? I ask, further, when such attempts have been made, -have they not failed of success? The indignant heart repels a conviction -that is believed to debase it. - -The self-love of an individual is not warmer in its sense, or more -constant in its action, than what is called in French, _l'esprit de -corps_, or the self-love of an assembly; that jealous affection which a -body of men is always found to bear towards its own prerogatives and -power. I will not condemn this passion. Why should we urge an unmeaning -censure, or yield to groundless fears that truth and duty will be -abandoned, because men in a public assembly are still men, and feel that -spirit of corps which is one of the laws of their nature? Still less -should we despond or complain, if we reflect that this very spirit is a -guardian instinct that watches over the life of this assembly. It -cherishes the principle of self-preservation; and, without its -existence, and its existence with all the strength we see it possess, -the privileges of the Representatives of the people, and immediately the -liberties of the people, would not be guarded, as they are, with a -vigilance that never sleeps, and an unrelaxing constancy and courage. - -If the consequences, most unfairly attributed to the vote in the -affirmative, were not chimerical, and worse, for they are deceptive, I -should think it a reproach to be found even moderate in my zeal to -assert the constitutional powers of this assembly; and, whenever they -shall be in real danger, the present occasion affords proof that there -will be no want of advocates and champions. - -Indeed, so prompt are these feelings, and when once roused, so difficult -to pacify, that, if we could prove the alarm was groundless, the -prejudice against the appropriations may remain on the mind, and it may -even pass for an act of prudence and duty to negative a measure which -was lately believed by ourselves, and may hereafter be misconceived by -others, to encroach upon the powers of the House. Principles that bear a -remote affinity with usurpation on those powers will be rejected, not -merely as errors, but as wrongs. Our sensibilities will shrink from a -post where it is possible they may be wounded, and be inflamed by the -slightest suspicion of an assault. - -While these prepossessions remain, all argument is useless; it may be -heard with the ceremony of attention, and lavish its own resources, and -the patience it wearies, to no manner of purpose. The ears may be open, -but the mind will remain locked up, and every pass to the understanding -guarded. - -Unless, therefore, this jealous and repulsive fear for the rights of the -House can be allayed, I will not ask a hearing. - -I cannot press this topic too far--I cannot address myself with too much -emphasis to the magnanimity and candor of those who sit here, to -suspect their own feelings, and while they do, to examine the grounds of -their alarm. I repeat it, we must conquer our persuasion, that this body -has an interest in one side of the question more than the other, before -we attempt to surmount our objections. On most subjects, and solemn ones -too, perhaps in the most solemn of all, we form our creed more from -inclination than evidence. - -Let me expostulate with gentlemen to admit, if it be only by way of -supposition and for a moment, that it is barely possible they have -yielded too suddenly to their alarms for the powers of this House; that -the addresses which have been made with such variety of forms, and with -so great dexterity in some of them, to all that is prejudice and passion -in the heart, are either the effects or the instruments of artifice and -deception, and then let them see the subject once more in its singleness -and simplicity. - -It will be impossible, on taking a fair review of the subject, to -justify the passionate appeals that have been made to us to struggle for -our liberties and rights, and the solemn exhortation to reject the -proposition, said to be concealed in that on your table, to surrender -them for ever. In spite of this mock solemnity, I demand, if the House -will not concur in the measure to execute the Treaty, what other course -shall we take? How many ways of proceeding lie open before us? - -In the nature of things there are but three--we are either to make the -Treaty--to observe it--or break it. It would be absurd to say we will do -neither. If I may repeat a phrase, already so much abused, we are under -coercion to do one of them, and we have no power, by the exercise of our -discretion, to prevent the consequences of a choice. - -By refusing to act, we choose. The Treaty will be broken, and fall to -the ground. Where is the fitness, then, of replying to those who urge -upon this House the topics of duty and policy, that they attempt to -force the Treaty down, and to compel this assembly to renounce its -discretion, and to degrade itself to the rank of a blind and passive -instrument in the hands of the Treaty-making power? In case we reject -the appropriation, we do not secure any greater liberty of action, we -gain no safer shelter than before, from the consequences of the -decision. Indeed, they are not to be evaded. It is neither just nor -manly to complain that the Treaty-making power has produced this -coercion to act. It is not the art or the despotism of that power, it is -the nature of things that compels. Shall we, dreading to become the -blind instruments of power, yield ourselves the blinder dupes of mere -sounds of imposture? Yet that word, that empty word, coercion, has given -scope to an eloquence that, one would imagine, could not be tired, and -did not choose to be quieted. - -Let us examine still more in detail the alternatives that are before us, -and we shall scarcely fail to see, in still stronger lights, the -futility of our apprehensions for the power and liberty of the House. - -If, as some have suggested, the thing called a Treaty is incomplete, if -it has no binding force or obligation, the first question is, Will this -House complete the instrument, and by concurring, impart to it that -force which it wants? - -The doctrine has been avowed, that the Treaty, though formally ratified -by the Executive power of both nations, though published as a law for -our own, by the PRESIDENT's Proclamation, is still a mere proposition -submitted to this assembly no way distinguishable in point of authority -or obligation from a motion for leave to bring in a bill, or any other -original act of ordinary legislation. This doctrine, so novel in our -country, yet so dear to many, precisely for the reason that, in the -contention of power, victory is always dear, is obviously repugnant to -the very terms, as well as the fair interpretation of our own -resolutions, (Mr. BLOUNT's.) We declare that the Treaty-making power is -exclusively vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate, and not in this House. -Need I say that we fly in the face of that resolution when we pretend -that the acts of that power are not valid until we have concurred in -them? It would be nonsense, or worse, to use the language of the most -glaring contradiction and to claim a share in a power which we, at the -same time, disclaim as exclusively vested in other departments. - -What can be more strange than to say, that the compacts of the PRESIDENT -and Senate with foreign nations are Treaties, without our agency, and -yet those compacts want all power and obligation until they are -sanctioned by our concurrence? It is not my design in this place, if at -all, to go into the discussion of this part of the subject. I will, at -least for the present, take it for granted that this monstrous opinion -stands in little need of remark, and, if it does, lies almost out of the -reach of refutation. - -But, say those who hide the absurdity under the cover of ambiguous -phrases, have we no discretion? And, if we have, are we not to make use -of it in judging of the expediency or inexpediency of the Treaty? Our -resolution claims that privilege, and we cannot surrender it without -equal inconsistency and breach of duty. - -If there be any inconsistency in the case, it lies, not in making -appropriations for the Treaty, but in the resolution itself, (Mr. -BLOUNT's.) Let us examine it more nearly. A Treaty is a bargain between -nations binding in good faith; and what makes a bargain? The assent of -the contracting parties. We allow that the Treaty power is not in this -House; this House has no share in contracting, and is not a party; of -consequence, the PRESIDENT and Senate alone may make a Treaty that is -binding in good faith. We claim, however, say the gentlemen, a right to -judge of the expediency of Treaties--that is the constitutional province -of our discretion. Be it so--what follows? Treaties when adjudged by us -to be inexpedient, fall to the ground, and the public faith is not hurt. -This, incredible and extravagant as it may seem, is asserted. The amount -of it, in plainer language, is this--the PRESIDENT and Senate are to -make national bargains, and this House has nothing to do in making them. -But bad bargains do not bind this House, and, of inevitable consequence, -do not bind the nation. When a national bargain, called a Treaty, is -made, its binding force does not depend upon the making, but upon our -opinion that it is good. As our opinion on the matter can be known and -declared only by ourselves, when sitting in our Legislative capacity, -the Treaty, though ratified, and, as we choose to term it, made, is hung -up in suspense, till our sense is ascertained. We condemn the bargain, -and it falls, though, as we say, our faith does not. We approve a -bargain as expedient, and it stands firm, and binds the nation. Yet, -even in this latter case, its force is plainly not derived from the -ratification by the Treaty-making power, but from our approbation. Who -will trace these inferences, and pretend that we may have no share, -according to the argument, in the Treaty-making power? These opinions, -nevertheless, have been advocated with infinite zeal and perseverance. -Is it possible that any man can be hardy enough to avow them, and their -ridiculous consequences? - -Let me hasten to suppose the Treaty is considered as already made, and -then the alternative is fairly presented to the mind, whether we will -observe the Treaty, or break it. This, in fact, is the naked question. - -If we choose to observe it with good faith, our course is obvious. -Whatever is stipulated to be done by the nation, must be complied with. -Our agency, if it should be requisite, cannot be properly refused. And I -do not see why it is not as obligatory a rule of conduct for the -Legislature as for the Courts of Law. - -I cannot lose this opportunity to remark, that the coercion, so much -dreaded and declaimed against, appears at length to be no more than the -authority of principles, the despotism of duty. Gentlemen complain that -we are forced to act in this way, we are forced to swallow the Treaty. -It is very true, unless we claim the liberty of abuse, the right to act -as we ought not. There is but one way open for us, the laws of morality -and good faith have fenced up every other. What sort of liberty is that -which we presume to exercise against the authority of those laws! It is -for tyrants to complain that principles are restraints, and that they -have no liberty so long as their despotism has limits. - -The consequences of refusing to make provision for the Treaty are not -all to be foreseen. By rejecting, vast interests are committed to the -sport of the winds, chance becomes the arbiter of events, and it is -forbidden to human foresight to count their number, or measure their -extent. Before we resolve to leap into this abyss, so dark and so -profound, it becomes us to pause and reflect upon such of the dangers -as are obvious and inevitable. If this assembly should be wrought into a -temper to defy these consequences, it is vain, it is deceptive, to -pretend that we can escape them. It is worse than weakness to say, that -as to public faith our vote has already settled the question. Another -tribunal than our own is already erected. The public opinion, not merely -of our own country, but of the enlightened world, will pronounce -judgment that we cannot resist, that we dare not even affect to despise. - -Well may I urge it to men who know the worth of character, that it is no -trivial calamity to have it contested. Refusing to do what the Treaty -stipulates shall be done, opens the controversy. Even if we should stand -justified at last, a character that is vindicated is something worse -than it stood before, unquestioned and unquestionable. Like the -plaintiff in an action of slander, we recover a reputation disfigured by -invective, and even tarnished by too much handling. In the combat for -the honor of the nation, it may receive some wounds, which, though they -should heal, will leave some scars. I need not say, for surely the -feelings of every bosom have anticipated, that we cannot guard this -sense of national honor, this ever-living fire, which alone keeps -patriotism warm in the heart, with a sensibility too vigilant and -jealous. If, by executing the Treaty, there is no possibility of -dishonor, and if by rejecting there is some foundation for doubt and for -reproach, it is not for me to measure, it is for your own feelings to -estimate the vast distance that divides the one side of the alternative -from the other. If, therefore, we should enter on the examination of the -question of duty and obligation with some feelings of prepossession, I -do not hesitate to say, they are such as we ought to have; it is an -after inquiry to determine whether they are such as ought finally to be -resisted. - -To expatiate on the value of public faith, may pass with some men for -declamation; to such men I have nothing to say. To others I will urge, -can any circumstance mark upon a people more turpitude and debasement? -Can any thing tend more to make men think themselves mean, or degrade to -a lower point their estimation of virtue and their standard of action? -It would not merely demoralize mankind, it tends to break all the -ligaments of society, to dissolve that mysterious charm which attracts -individuals to the nation, and to inspire in its stead a repulsive sense -of shame and disgust. - -What is patriotism? Is it a narrow affection for the spot where a man -was born? Are the very clods where we tread entitled to this ardent -preference because they are greener? No, sir; this is not the character -of the virtue, and it soars higher for its object. It is an extended -self-love, mingling with all the enjoyments of life, and twisting itself -with the minutest filaments of the heart. It is thus we obey the laws of -society, because they are the laws of virtue. In their authority we see -not the array of force and terror, but the venerable image of our -country's honor. Every good citizen makes that honor his own, and -cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk -his life in its defence, and is conscious that he gains protection while -he gives it. For what rights of a citizen will be deemed inviolable when -a State renounces the principles that constitute their security? Or, if -his life should not be invaded, what would its enjoyments be in a -country odious to the eyes of strangers and dishonored in his own? Could -he look with affection and veneration to such a country as his parent? -The sense of having one would die within him; he would blush for his -patriotism, if he retained any, and justly, for it would be a vice. He -would be a banished man in his native land. - -I see no exception to the respect that is paid among nations to the law -of good faith. If there are cases in this enlightened period when it is -violated, there are none when it is decried. It is the philosophy of -politics--the religion of governments. It is observed by barbarians that -a whiff of tobacco-smoke or a string of beads gives not merely binding -force, but sanctity, to Treaties. Even in Algiers, a truce may be bought -for money, but when ratified, even Algiers is too wise or too just to -disown and annul its obligation. Thus, we see neither the ignorance of -savages, nor the principles of an association for piracy and rapine, -permit a nation to despise its engagements. If, sir, there could be a -resurrection from the foot of the gallows; if the victims of justice -could live again, collect together, and form a society, they would, -however loth, soon find themselves obliged to make justice--that justice -under which they fell--the fundamental law of their State. They would -perceive it was their interest to make others respect, and they would -therefore soon pay some respect themselves to the obligations of good -faith. - -The refusal of the posts (inevitable, if we reject the Treaty) is a -measure too decisive in its nature to be neutral in its consequences. -From great causes we are to look for great effects. A plain and obvious -one will be, the price of the Western lands will fall. Settlers will not -choose to fix their habitation on a field of battle. Those who talk so -much of the interests of the United States, should calculate how deeply -it will be affected by rejecting the Treaty--how vast a tract of wild -land will almost cease to be property. This loss, let it be observed, -will fall upon a fund expressly devoted to sink the National Debt. What -then are we called upon to do? However the form of the vote and the -protestations of many may disguise the proceeding, our resolution is in -substance (and it deserves to wear the title of a resolution) to prevent -the sale of the Western lands and the discharge of the public debt. - -Will the tendency to Indian hostilities be contrasted by any one? -Experience gives the answer. The frontiers were scourged with war till -the negotiation with Britain was far advanced, and then the state of -hostility ceased. Perhaps the public agents of both nations are innocent -of fomenting the Indian war, and perhaps they are not. We ought not, -however, to expect that neighboring nations, highly irritated against -each other, will neglect the friendship of the savages. The traders will -gain an influence, and will abuse it; and who is ignorant that their -passions are easily raised, and hardly restrained from violence. Their -situation will oblige them to choose between this country and Great -Britain, in case the Treaty should be rejected. They will not be our -friends, and at the same time the friends of our enemies. - -But am I reduced to the necessity of proving this point? Certainly the -very men who charged the Indian war on the detention of the posts will -call for no other proof than the recital of their own speeches. It is -remembered with what emphasis--with what acrimony--they expatiated on -the burden of taxes, and the drain of blood and treasure into the -Western country, in consequence of Britain's holding the posts. "Until -the posts are restored," they exclaimed, "the Treasury and the frontiers -must bleed." - -If any, against all these proofs, should maintain that the peace with -the Indians will be stable without the posts, to them I will urge -another reply. From arguments calculated to produce conviction, I will -appeal directly to the hearts of those who hear me, and ask whether it -is not already planted there? I resort especially to the convictions of -the Western gentlemen, whether, supposing no posts and no Treaty, the -settlers will remain in security? Can they take it upon them to say that -an Indian peace, under these circumstances, will prove firm. No, sir; it -will not be peace, but a sword; it will be no better than a lure to draw -victims within the reach of the tomahawk. - -On this theme, my emotions are unutterable. If I could find words for -them--if my powers bore any proportion to my zeal--I would swell my -voice to such a note of remonstrance it should reach every log-house -beyond the mountains. I would say to the inhabitants, Wake from your -false security! Your cruel dangers--your more cruel apprehensions--are -soon to be renewed; the wounds, yet unhealed, are to be torn open again. -In the day-time, your path through the woods will be ambushed; the -darkness of midnight will glitter with the blaze of your dwellings. You -are a father: the blood of your sons shall fatten your corn-field! You -are a mother: the war-whoop shall wake the sleep of the cradle! - -On this subject you need not suspect any deception on your feelings. It -is a spectacle of horror which cannot be overdrawn. If you have nature -in your hearts, it will speak a language compared with which all I have -said or can say will be poor and frigid. - -Will it be whispered that the Treaty has made me a new champion for the -protection of the frontiers? It is known that my voice, as well as my -vote, have been uniformly given in conformity with the ideas I have -expressed. Protection is the right of the frontier: it is our duty to -give it. - -Who will accuse me of wandering out of the subject? Who will say that I -exaggerate the tendencies of our measures? Will any one answer by a -sneer, that all this is idle preaching? Will any one deny that we are -bound--and I would hope to good purpose--by the most solemn sanctions of -duty for the vote we give? Are despots alone to be reproached for -unfeeling indifference to the tears and blood of their subjects? Are -Republicans irresponsible? Have the principles on which you ground the -reproach upon Cabinets and Kings no practical influence--no binding -force? Are they merely themes of idle declamation, introduced to -decorate the morality of a newspaper essay, or to furnish pretty topics -of harangue from the windows of that State-house? I trust it is neither -too presumptuous, nor too late to ask, can you put the dearest interest -of society at risk without guilt, and without remorse? - -It is vain to offer as an excuse, that public men are not to be -reproached for the evils that may happen to ensue from their measures. -This is very true, where they are unforeseen or inevitable. Those I have -depicted are not unforeseen; they are so far from inevitable, we are -going to bring them into being by our vote. We choose the consequences, -and become as justly answerable for them as for the measure that we know -will produce them. - -By rejecting the posts, we light the savage fires--we bind the victims. -This day we undertake to render account to the widows and orphans whom -our decision will make; to the wretches that will be roasted at the -stake; to our country; and I do not deem it too serious to say, to -conscience, and to God--we are answerable; and if duty be any thing more -than a word of imposture, if conscience be not a bugbear, we are -preparing to make ourselves as wretched as our country. - -There is no mistake in this case; there can be none. Experience has -already been the prophet of events, and the cries of our future victims -have already reached us. The Western inhabitants are not a silent and -uncomplaining sacrifice. The voice of humanity issues from the shade of -their wilderness. It exclaims that while one hand is held up to reject -this Treaty, the other grasps a tomahawk. It summons our imagination to -the scenes that will open. It is no great effort of the imagination to -conceive, that events so near are already begun. I can fancy that I -listen to the yells of savage vengeance, and the shrieks of torture. -Already they seem to sigh in the west wind; already they mingle with -every echo from the mountains. - -Are the posts to remain for ever in the possession of Great Britain? Let -those who reject them, when the Treaty offers them to our hands, say, -if they choose, they are of no importance. If they are, will they take -them by force? The argument I am urging would then come to a point. To -use force, is war. To talk of Treaty again, is too absurd. Posts and -redress must come from voluntary good will, Treaty, or war. - -Such a state of things will exist, if we should long avoid war, as will -be worse than war. Peace without security, accumulation of injury -without redress, or the hope of it, resentment against the aggressor, -contempt for ourselves, intestine discord and anarchy. Worse than this -need not be apprehended, for if worse could happen, anarchy would bring -it. Is this the peace gentlemen undertake, with such fearless -confidence, to maintain? Is this the station of American dignity, which -the high-spirited champions of our national independence and honor could -endure; nay, which they are anxious and almost violent to seize for the -country? What is there in the Treaty that could humble us so low? Are -they the men to swallow their resentments, who so lately were choking -with them? If in the case contemplated by them, it should be peace, I do -not hesitate to declare it ought not to be peace. - -Let me cheer the mind, weary no doubt and ready to respond on this -prospect, by presenting another, which it is yet in our power to -realize. Is it possible for a real American to look at the prosperity of -this country without some desire for its continuance, without some -respect for the measures which, many will say, produced, and all will -confess, have preserved it? Will he not feel some dread that a change of -system will reverse the scene? The well-grounded fears of our citizens -in 1794 were removed by the Treaty, but are not forgotten. Then they -deemed war nearly inevitable, and would not this adjustment have been -considered at that day as a happy escape from the calamity? The great -interest, and the general desire of our people, was, to enjoy the -advantages of neutrality. This instrument, however misrepresented, -affords America that inestimable security. The causes of our disputes -are either cut up by the roots, or referred to a new negotiation, after -the end of the European war. This was gaining every thing, because it -confirmed our neutrality, by which our citizens are gaining every thing. -This alone would justify the engagements of the Government. For, when -the fiery vapors of the war lowered in the skirts of our horizon, all -our wishes were concentered in this one, that we might escape the -desolation of the storm. This Treaty, like a rainbow on the edge of the -cloud, marked to our eyes the space where it was raging, and afforded at -the same time the sure prognostic of fair weather. If we reject it, the -vivid colors will grow pale; it will be a baleful meteor, portending -tempest and war. - -Let us not hesitate, then, to agree to the appropriation to carry it -into faithful execution. Thus we shall save the faith of our nation, -secure its peace, and diffuse the spirit of confidence and enterprise -that will augment its prosperity. The progress of wealth and improvement -is wonderful, and, some will think, too rapid. The field for exertion is -fruitful and vast, and, if peace and good government should be -preserved, the acquisitions of our citizens are not so pleasing as the -proofs of their industry, as the instruments of their future success. -The rewards of exertion go to augment its power. Profit is every hour -becoming capital. The vast crop of our neutrality is all seed wheat, and -is sown again to swell, almost beyond calculation, the future harvest of -prosperity: and in this progress, what seems to be fiction, is found to -fall short of experience. - - -FRIDAY, April 29. - -_Execution of British Treaty._ - -Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) declared that he did by no means intend to -follow the gentlemen who had conceived it advisable to enter into a -discussion of the merits of the Treaty, article by article. - -To those, he said, who regarded this second Treaty with Great Britain -with disagreeable sensations--to those who believed that it did not -contain in it such terms as the United States had reason to expect, and -even a right to demand--to all those whose indignation had been excited -at the unwarrantable outrages committed by that nation upon the rights -of our neutral powers, who had seen their high-handed acts with -astonishment, and the whole conduct of their administration towards this -country with abhorrence--to those whose attachment for the French, nobly -struggling for their liberties, was sincere, and who ardently wished -that their revolution might terminate in the establishment of a good and -stable government:--to all of this description, he could, with -propriety, address himself, and say, that he harmonized with them in -opinion, and that his feelings were in perfect unison with theirs. But -if, he said, there should be found in that assembly one member, whose -affection for any other nation exceeded that which he entertained for -this, whose Representative he was--if there could even be found a single -man whose hatred to any other country was greater than his love for -America--him, he should consider as his enemy, hostile to the interests -of the people who sent him there, utterly unqualified to judge rightly -of their concerns, and a betrayer of the trust reposed in him. But, Mr. -D. said, he could not believe it possible, that there were any such -amongst them, and he was convinced that every one must see and feel the -necessity of divesting himself of all his hatred, all his prejudices, -and even all attachments that were in the least degree inconsistent with -an unbiased deliberation and decision. The good and the prosperity of -the people of the United States ought to be the primary object. It was -that alone which their Representatives were delegated and commissioned -more immediately to promote, and who would deny that it was intimately -connected with, and involved in the vote they were about to give? - -That the defects of this instrument of compact with Britain greatly -exceeded its merits, was a truth which was strongly impressed upon his -mind, long before he had heard the reasoning of the gentleman from -Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) who had opened the debate. Although that -gentleman had sketched its deformities in strong colors, and had in some -instances, perhaps, exaggerated them; yet, Mr. D. said, he should not -have contested the justice of the picture he had exhibited, if he had, -at the same time, presented to their view, in true and faithful -coloring, the other side of it also. Yet, this was surely necessary in -order to enable them to form a right judgment. That member had declared -that the House were now called upon to approve the Treaty, but Mr. D. -was far from believing such a declaration warranted by the language or -nature of the propositions on the table, to which all might assent, -without pledging themselves to be the approvers of the instrument -itself. - -So firmly convinced was he of this, that, if he could subscribe to the -truth and force of every objection that had been urged by that -gentleman, he should, nevertheless, by no means conclude with him, that -the House ought to withhold the appropriations, but, on the contrary, -they ought to grant them. This would be his course of conduct, because -difficulties and inconveniences alone presented themselves to their view -and choice, and he thought he should act unfaithfully, if he endeavored -to shun those on the one side only, without regarding the wide scene of -dangers into which he might plunge his country on the other. What would -be thought of that man, who, because the road he was travelling proved -to be an uneven and rough one, should considerately betake himself to an -opposite path without exploring the precipice that awaited him there? In -the individual it would be deemed an evidence of madness, and such -heedless conduct in that House could not escape the imputation of -blindness. Under impressions of this sort, as to the importance of the -vote he was about to give, he conceived himself bound to extend his -views beyond the mere intrinsic merits of the Treaty, and to estimate -the evils which must flow from a rejection of it. What, he asked, were -these? Would a foreign war, and the dissolution of the Government be the -certain fruits of a rejection, as had been represented by some gentlemen -whose opinions he respected? These would certainly be amongst the most -dreadful calamities which could befall a country, and, especially, one -made up of Confederacies like this; and although he did not think them -probable, yet, they must be admitted to be possible, and as such, -justify those who allow them to influence their minds. But he appealed -to those gentlemen who seemed to treat such apprehensions as perfectly -chimerical, whether there might not be others, which, though less -alarming than a foreign war and dissolution of the Union, would yet -exceed--nay, very far exceed, those which are to follow the operation of -the Treaty. The first fruit of a rejection would be, Mr. D. said, a -claim from the merchants who had suffered by spoliations, to be fully -indemnified from the Treasury. He called upon the members who, like -himself, represented agricultural States; and he called, also, upon -those who represented the landed and agricultural interests in the -commercial States, to declare, whether they were prepared to burden -their constituents with a tax of five millions of dollars to be thus -applied? - -He did not fear that he should be charged, as others had been, with -sounding a false alarm. A proposition to that effect had already been -laid on the table, and, what was not a little singular, it was founded -on a presumption that the Treaty was to be annulled by a vote of the -House, and was to derive its support from that very circumstance. Mr. D. -thought it his duty to remind gentlemen of the doctrine uttered by the -member from New York, (Mr. LIVINGSTON,) when he moved it, as well as of -the extent of the principle contained in it. It is an established -principle, said the mover, that protection is equally due to the person -and property of all citizens, and that where the Government fails to -protect, it is bound to indemnify for all the losses that may be -sustained by every individual in consequence of such failure. They were, -therefore, Mr. D. said, if they rejected the Treaty, to be immediately -called upon to recognize a principle which would not only pledge them to -tax their fellow-citizens for the five millions, at which the British -spoliations were estimated, but, also, to make compensation for every -depredation that might hereafter be made upon their trade; nay, more, -for every injury that any American citizen might suffer through want of -protection. He was aware that he might be told that the resolution -embraced only merchants who had suffered, but he contended that the -principle, when established, must extend to all; for he challenged any -gentleman to show what better title they who inhabited the frontier next -the sea, had to claim Governmental protection and indemnification, than -they who inhabited a frontier on the land side? If, therefore, they were -determined to compensate from the Treasury the merchant for his -plundered cargo, they were equally bound to pay the frontier settler for -his stolen horse; and there would be no bounds to such claims, or means -to satisfy them. - -It had been asked what would be the conduct of Britain, when they should -learn that the House of Representatives had refused to make -appropriations for the Treaty. He was disposed to think that they would -not consider it a cause, or make it a pretext, for the war. Having in -their hands the fur trade, the Western posts, and about five millions of -dollars, of which they had despoiled the people of these States, they -might probably sit down contented with the spoils they had made, after -this Government had, by its own act, dissolved the stipulations they had -entered into to make restitution and compensation. But what, in this -state of things, would restrain their piratical cruisers in the West -Indies? They, whether hoping that a war would be the consequence of -annulling the Treaty, or that, as the two nations were no longer under -that tie, they might again rob with impunity; and would probably seize -on American vessels wherever they could meet them, and carry them into -those ports in which corrupt Judges stood ready to condemn them. - -So far as this question respected a dissolution of the present -Government, it was certainly a very delicate one. Important as the -subject under debate unquestionably was, he was free to declare it to be -his opinion that no decision, however unfavorable it might seem, could -justify, or would produce a separation of the States. He lamented that -it had been conceived or mentioned by any one, for he should, whilst he -had strength, resist such an event as the most fatal that could befall -his country, and would cling to the Union as the rock of their political -salvation. But he would not say, nor would any one else seriously say, -that there was no room to apprehend that a rejection might produce -suspicions, jealousies, distrusts, and discord between the one part of -the Union and the other, and such a general fermentation in the public -mind as never before prevailed. - -He could not here refrain from making a serious appeal to the candor and -good sense of the gentleman from Virginia. Having served with him many -years in public life--in the old Congress, under the Confederation, in -the Federal Convention, and for nearly six years under the present form -of Government, he had, upon many and various occasions, witnessed the -display of his superior talents, and the efforts of his patriotism, and -derived from thence a conviction that, as at no former moment, so -neither at the present, could he appeal to those qualities in that -gentleman in vain. Mr. D. requested him to turn his attention to the -last article of the British Treaty, and particularly that part of it -which is in the words following, viz: - - "This Treaty, when the same shall have been ratified by His - Majesty and by the President of the United States, by and - with the advice and consent of their Senate, and the - respective ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be - binding and obligatory on His Majesty and on the said - States, and shall be by them respectively executed and - observed with punctuality and the most sincere regard to - good faith," &c. - -He called upon the gentleman from Virginia to show in what line or word -of it the PRESIDENT had exceeded his authority, or, if that was not -pretended, and he believed it was not by any one, he wished that -gentleman to reflect for a moment how it was possible to refuse -appropriations, and yet preserve inviolate the faith of this country, so -solemnly pledged in that article. - -Mr. D. concluded with observing that, although he was not pleased with -many parts of the Treaty--although he had never felt any strong -predilection for an intimate connection with Britain--although he had -never seen their encroachments on the rights, nor their depredations -upon the property of American citizens with an indulgent eye, or in the -temper of tame submission, and although he had long ceased to entertain -any respect for the negotiator, yet he should vote for the resolution, -because he loved his country, and to that love, would sacrifice every -resentment, every prejudice, every personal consideration. He should -vote to carry the Treaty into effect with good faith, because he -sincerely believed that the interests of his fellow-citizens would be -much more promoted by that, than by the opposite line of conduct. - -The question was then put on the resolution, which is in substance as -follows: - -_Resolved_, That it is expedient to make the necessary appropriations -for carrying the Treaty with Great Britain into effect. - -The House divided, forty-nine for the resolution, forty-nine against it. - -It remained for the Chairman, Mr. MUHLENBERG, to decide. - -He said, he did not feel satisfied with the resolution as it now stood; -he should, however, vote for it, that it might go to the House, and -there be modified. - -The resolution was consequently agreed to, and reported to the House. - -[The following statement will show the true sense of the House as to the -expediency of carrying the British Treaty into effect: - -Forty-nine voted for this expediency. - -Forty-nine against it. - -The Chairman, Mr. MUHLENBERG, to give an opportunity further to consider -the resolution, voted for it. - -Mr. PATTON from Delaware was ill, and was necessarily absent. It is, -however, well understood, that he is opposed to the Treaty. - -Mr. VARNUM was accidentally absent. He is no friend to the Treaty. - -Messrs. FREEMAN, SHERBURNE, and VAN CORTLANDT are absent on leave. - -Mr. DUVALL has resigned, and his successor has not yet taken his seat. - -From which it is evident that there is an actual majority of the House -against the expediency of carrying the Treaty into execution.] - - -SATURDAY, April 30. - -_Execution of British Treaty._ - -The House then took up the resolution yesterday passed in a Committee of -the Whole, for carrying into effect the Treaty lately negotiated with -Great Britain: when - -Mr. DEARBORN said, as it appeared that a majority of that House was in -favor of carrying into effect the British Treaty, notwithstanding -several of those gentlemen who had declared their intention of voting -for it, had declared they thought it a bad Treaty, and as he wished to -see the opinion the House entertained of the Treaty entered upon their -journals, he took the liberty of proposing an amendment to the -resolution in the following words: - -"_Resolved_, That, although in the opinion of this House the Treaty is -highly objectionable, and may prove injurious to the United States, yet, -considering all the circumstances relating thereto, and particularly, -that the last eighteen articles are to continue in force only during the -present war, and two years thereafter, and confiding also in the -efficacy of measures that may be taken for bringing about a -discontinuance of the violations committed on our neutral rights, in -regard to our vessels and seamen, therefore, &c." - -Mr. COIT hoped the yeas and nays would be taken upon the question; which -was agreed to. - -Mr. GOODHUE hoped the House would not agree to the resolution; he, for -one, would never agree to it. - -Mr. SWANWICK hoped the amendment would be agreed to; for whatever some -gentlemen's opinion might be with respect to the propriety of carrying -the Treaty into effect, very few thought it a good Treaty. An amendment, -therefore, declaring the motives which actuated that House in passing -the resolution for carrying the Treaty into effect was very desirable; -it would induce some gentlemen to vote for it, who would otherwise vote -against it, and it ought not to excite objection. He appealed to the -recollection of gentlemen, the arguments which had been used to enforce -the necessity of the appropriations, which laid great stress upon the -shortness of time which the most objectionable part of the Treaty was to -be in force. He hoped, therefore, these arguments would not be objected -to in the form of a resolution. - -Mr. HILLHOUSE said, when he prepared the resolution on the table, he -thought he had done it in such general terms that every gentleman might -vote for it, without expressing a sentiment contrary to what he -entertained respecting the Treaty. The amendment proposed, he thought -very objectionable. It appeared as if it was intended to force gentlemen -to vote against carrying the Treaty into effect rather than vote for the -Treaty. For his own part, he could not vote for it, as it would be in -direct contradiction to the sentiments which he had before expressed. He -thought candor itself could not expect gentlemen who approved of the -Treaty to vote for the amendment. It was also a rule to avoid expressing -particular sentiments in resolutions of this kind. One part of the -proposition, if it was brought forward separately, would be assented to -generally, respecting the confidence placed in the PRESIDENT, with -respect to future spoliations and impressments of men. In this -proposition, it was said, the Treaty was injurious; he did not believe -it was so. He believed it would be beneficial to the United States. It -would not only be agreeing to an opinion which was contrary to the -sentiments of gentlemen, but it would be passing a censure on the other -branches of Government. Gentlemen were not required to say it was a good -Treaty, and he hoped no one would be forced to say it was a bad one. - -[The SPEAKER informed the House that it was then twelve o'clock, and as -they had yesterday ordered that there should be a call of the House -to-day at that hour, he should direct the Clerk to make the call. It was -accordingly done. Messrs. BRENT, HARPER, and PATTON were absent. The two -former came to the House soon after the call, and, on making apologies, -were excused. Mr. PATTON was indisposed.] - -Mr. GREGG said he should vote for the resolution in its present state. -He did so, not because he thought the Treaty a good one, but because he -believed the interest of the United States would be promoted by making -the necessary appropriations, and because he was apprehensive worse -consequences might arise from defeating it than from carrying it into -effect. - -Mr. MOORE considered himself as called upon to choose between two evils. -He considered the Treaty to be bad. On the other hand, he was -apprehensive that evils might arise, if it was not carried into effect, -out of the control of that House. He had resolved not to vote for the -resolution on the table; but he felt unwilling to take upon himself the -responsibility of rejecting the Treaty, which had been sanctioned by the -PRESIDENT and Senate. In deciding upon the amendment proposed, he wished -the sense of the House to be taken; and if he considered that a single -individual would be influenced to vote against the resolution who would -otherwise have voted for it, he should wish them to be separated. It was -his opinion the Treaty was a bad one, and he believed it was the opinion -of a decided majority of that House. He wished the resolution to be so -amended that the Treaty might go into effect by a considerable majority, -as it would tend to lessen the irritation which had been raised -respecting it. - -Mr. DEARBORN said, in offering the amendment which he had proposed, he -had no intention of taking any thing like an unfair advantage, or of -producing what might be thought uncandid or unfair. His own sentiments -relative to the Treaty were such as would prevent his consenting to do -any thing to carry it into effect, unless with such a provision as he -had brought forward. It appeared to him of such a nature, that he was -not sure that he could bring his mind to vote to carry it into effect at -all. He had supposed there could be nothing improper in taking the -opinion of the House relative to the thing itself. If it might be -presumed that there were but few gentlemen in that House who thought the -Treaty a good one, he, indeed, thought there were none of that opinion, -until then, though some gentlemen had praised it in their speeches, but -which he had merely considered as adding weight to their arguments, he -believed such an amendment was desirable. - -As he, therefore, took it for granted that a considerable majority of -the House were of the same opinion with himself, he saw no impropriety -in having that opinion expressed. The propositions would not interfere -with any bill which might be brought in, and gentlemen would have the -discretion to vote for it or not. If a majority of the House thought -differently from him, and chose to negative the amendment, he should be -satisfied. Until he heard something further on the business, to convince -him of the impropriety of doing so, he should wish to see a decision of -the House upon the proposition as he had offered it. - -Mr. HARPER said he was of the number who thought the measure of passing -the resolution on the table a very expedient one; but whilst this was -his opinion, he knew there were many, both within and without their -walls, of a different opinion. He had no objection to gentlemen's -expressing their opinions, but he wished also to be at liberty to -express his. He should, therefore, propose that the mover should form -his resolution as a preamble. This would answer the purpose of the -gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MOORE.) - -He said, when it was so formed, every one would have an opportunity of -voting for it, and, if negatived, the resolution would stand as before. -He hoped, therefore, the proposal would be agreed to. - -Mr. DEARBORN said he considered his motion in the nature of a preamble; -and he had no objection to any alteration that would make it more -properly so. - -Mr. KITTERA appealed to the candor of the gentleman who brought forward -the amendment, with respect to the propriety of making his proposition a -distinct one. He thought it would be extremely improper to pass a -resolution which would say, "We pass this law, though we believe it to -be a very bad one." He thought it also directly charging another branch -of the Government with improper conduct. - -Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to the amendment being inserted by way of -preamble. He urged the propriety of the opinions of members being fairly -taken on this important business. - -Mr. GREGG wished to offer an amendment, as a substitute to that before -the committee. It was, in substance, as follows: "_Resolved_, That under -a consideration of existing circumstances, without reference to the -merits or demerits of the Treaty, and in confidence that measures will -be taken by the Executive to maintain our neutral rights, it is -expedient," &c. - -This was declared out of order until the amendment was decided on. - -Mr. VENABLE had no objection to the propositions being taken separately, -as gentlemen would be then left at liberty to vote as they pleased. He -conceived there were gentlemen who would vote for the proposition with -the amendment, who would not vote for it without it. He did not know -that any amendment would reconcile the resolution to him; for, though he -should vote for the amendment, he would not bind himself to vote for -carrying into effect the Treaty. - -Mr. MURRAY said he had not spoken on the subject before. He was stating -that the PRESIDENT was armed only with reason; he was stripped of all -the symbols of power, and if the Treaty before them was carried into -effect, with such a clog as the amendment proposed, he would be -debilitated indeed. Their Executive had, in his opinion, done great -things, and what would have covered any European Minister with -untarnished laurels, by means of reason and policy; for, however -wickedly courts act, they calculate upon the force of the powers with -whom they treat. When a Minister goes to negotiate, they inquire into -the naval and military force of his country, their appropriations for -the army and navy, &c., &c. The Envoy of the United States would be a -blank upon such an occasion. What was their interest, then? It was to -give energy to their Government. Should they then pass the law in such a -manner as almost to warrant the people in resisting it? The only thing -which remained for them to do, was, not only to carry the Treaty into -effect, but to carry it into effect with good faith. The object was not -merely the posts--it was a conciliation of the differences long existing -between the two nations; and it was their duty to execute it so as to -produce the greatest advantage; whereas, if they were to agree to the -amendment proposed, so covered with odium, it would weaken the power of -the Executive, already too feeble. - -Mr. S. SMITH said he had never seen any cause of gloom. He never doubted -that the members of that House would come to right conclusions. They did -right yesterday, and he was not afraid of their doing wrong to-day. In -their decision yesterday, the Chairman had doubts. He decided in favor -of the resolution, in hopes of its undergoing some modification--that -modification was now brought forward. It did not entirely please him; -but he thought it might be so amended as to please every one. He moved -that the words "and may prove injurious to the United States," be struck -out. Consented to. - -Mr. MUHLENBERG said, when he gave his vote yesterday, he did it in the -hope of a modification of the resolution taking place in the House. A -modification was now brought forward, and he was ready to vote for some -such modification. Whilst he made this declaration, he must add, that he -was willing also to vote for the original resolution. He wished the -sense of the House to be taken upon the two propositions separately. - -Mr. DEARBORN consented to the propositions being taken separately. - -Mr. S. SMITH moved to strike out the word "highly," so as to read -_objectionable_, instead of "highly objectionable." - -The sense of the House was taken, when there were 48 for the striking -out, and 48 against it. The SPEAKER gave his vote in the affirmative. - -Mr. KITCHELL said, he should vote against the proposition now brought -forward, because he thought it wrong to hold up an idea which would have -a tendency to weaken the Government. He looked upon it as injurious. The -people would judge upon the Treaty from the instrument itself, and what -had been said of it. They ought never to alarm the people unnecessarily. -It was not from any fear of going to war, or any other apprehension but -what he had mentioned, which caused this opposition in him. - -Mr. GALLATIN said, if the propositions could be divided, no gentleman -could reasonably object to the sense of the House being taken upon them. - -Mr. PARKER said, he had not yet spoken upon this business. He would now -say, he disapproved of the amendment, and should not vote for it. He -thought the Treaty a bad one, and would not agree to vote for it by -means of any modification. - -Mr. HEISTER said, he should vote for the amendment, because, if the -Treaty went into operation, he should wish the reasons which induced the -House to agree to it to appear, on the Journals. When, however, the -resolution for carrying the Treaty into effect was put, he should vote -against it. - -The motion was then put on the preamble, and decided in the negative, as -follows: yeas, 49, nays 50: - - YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, - Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Dempsey - Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, John Clopton, - Isaac Coles, Henry Dearborn, Samuel Earle, Jesse Franklin, - Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, - Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, William Barry Grove, - Wade Hampton, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. - Havens, Daniel Heister, James Holland, George Jackson, - Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel - Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Milledge, - Andrew Moore, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John - Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Francis Preston, - Robert Rutherford, Israel Smith, John Swanwick, Absalom - Tatom, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham - Venable, and Richard Winn. - - NAYS.--Fisher Ames, Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, - Nathan Bryan, Daniel Buck, Thomas Claiborne, Joshua Coit, - Wm. Cooper, Jeremiah Crabb, George Dent, Abiel Foster, - Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry - Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, - George Hancock, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, John - Heath, Thomas Henderson, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, - Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera, George Leonard, Samuel - Lyman, Francis Malbone, William Vans Murray, Josiah Parker, - John Read, John Richards, Theodore Sedgwick, Samuel - Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith, - Samuel Smith, William Smith, Thomas Sprigg, Zephaniah - Swift, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, - Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John - Williams. - -From this list it appears that the question was lost by one vote. The -clerk, however, through mistake, reported the votes to be equal, viz: -49 for and 49 against the question, and the SPEAKER gave his vote in the -negative, but the above was afterwards found to be the true statement. - -Mr. W. SMITH was glad the motion was negatived. He did not wish either -blame or praise to be cast upon the Treaty by the resolution passed to -carry it into effect. He would, therefore, move to add the following -words to the original resolution: "Without reference to the merits of -the Treaty." - -Mr. GILES opposed this amendment. He said, it would be an indirect mode -of passing a censure upon the House for having undertaken to judge of -the merits of the Treaty. He did not know whether it struck the -gentleman in the same way, but he would agree it was improper to pass a -censure upon the House. He hoped, therefore, the motion would either be -withdrawn or voted against. - -The motion was withdrawn. - -Mr. WINN said, as it was his opinion, and the opinion of the generality -of his constituents, that the Treaty was a bad one, he should vote -against it. - -The question was then taken by yeas and nays, and determined in the -affirmative--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Theodorus Bailey, Benjamin Bourne, - Theophilus Bradbury, Daniel Buck, Gabriel Christie, Joshua - Coit, William Cooper, Jeremiah Crabb, George Dent, Abiel - Foster, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, - Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, Chauncey Goodrich, Andrew - Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, George Hancock, - Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, Thomas Henderson, - James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Aaron Kitchell, John - Wilkes Kittera, George Leonard, Samuel Lyman, Francis - Malbone, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Wm. Vans Murray, John - Read, John Richards, Theodore Sedgwick, Samuel Sitgreaves, - Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith, - William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Richard - Thomas, Mark Thompson, Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, - Philip Van Cortlandt, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams. - - NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas - Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Samuel - J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, Isaac Coles, - Henry Dearborn, Samuel Earle, Jesse Franklin, Albert - Gallatin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Christopher - Greenup, Wade Hampton, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, - Jonathan N. Havens, John Heath, Daniel Heister, James - Holland, George Jackson, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, - William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James - Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, John - Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, - Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, Israel Smith, Thomas - Sprigg, John Swanwick, Absalom Tatom, Joseph B. Varnum, - Abraham Venable, and Richard Winn. - -_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said -resolution, and that Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. GALLATIN, do -prepare and bring in the same. - -[RECAPITULATION. - -For declaring the Treaty highly objectionable 48 - -Against this declaration 48 - -The SPEAKER decided in the negative. - -For declaring the Treaty objectionable 49 - -Against the declaration; some because they did not consider it -objectionable; others because they feared making the declaration would -be injurious, and others because, so opposed to the Treaty, as to object -to all compromise 49 - -The SPEAKER decided in the negative. - -For carrying into effect the Treaty; some because a good one, others -because best to execute it under existing circumstances 51 - -Against carrying it into effect, because bad in itself, and -notwithstanding existing circumstances 48 - -Absent on this question--Messrs. SHERBURNE and FREEMAN, on leave; Mr. -DUVALL, resigned; Mr. PATTON, by illness; Mr. FINDLAY, -accidentally.][78] - - -FRIDAY, MAY 6. - -_Admission of Tennessee._ - -The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report -of the committee to whom was referred the Message of the PRESIDENT, -relative to the Territory of the United States south of the river Ohio. - -Mr. RUTHERFORD hoped the committee would concur in the report. He had no -idea of confining that Territory to the strict legal line. He did not -wish to cavil with this brave, generous people. He would have them taken -out of leading-strings, as they were now able to stand alone; it was -time to take them by the hand, and to say, we are glad to see you, stand -on your own feet. We should not, he said, be too nice about their -turning out their toes, or other trifles; they will soon march lustily -along. They had complied with every requisite for becoming a State of -the Union--they wished to form an additional star in the political -hemisphere of the United States--they have erected a State Government, -and wish to come into the Union, and to resist their claim would be out -of character. He hoped it would be agreed to. - -Mr. DAYTON said, he disapproved of the report of the committee, and of -the terms in which the resolution they had recommended for the adoption -of the House was expressed. He could never give his assent to any -proposition which expressly or even impliedly admitted that the people -inhabiting either of the Territories of the United States could, at -their own mere will and pleasure, and without the declared consent of -Congress, erect themselves into a separate and independent State. Yet -this seemed to be the spirit of the report under consideration, and what -was still worse, it went, as he understood, to renounce any right in -Congress even to deliberate whether they should become a member of the -Union. He was by no means desirous of opposing the wishes of this -valuable and enterprising people who inhabit the South-western -Territory, nor of unnecessarily impeding the efforts they were making to -throw off the Territorial jurisdiction, and establish a system of -Government for themselves; but being aware that the steps now about to -be taken would be regarded and pursued hereafter as a precedent, he -conceived it important that they should, in this first instance of the -sort that had presented itself, proceed circumspectly and rightly. He -was willing to pass a law in the present session which should at the -same time provide for erecting and forming them into a State, and for -admitting them as such into the Union. They should thereby effectually -promote the views of the people of Tennessee, in a mode which, by -avoiding the violation of any just political principle, would entirely -reconciled and render consistent the interest of that district of -country and of the several United States. - -Mr. D. acknowledged that he should have been much better satisfied if he -had found all the people comprehended within the Territorial line -petitioning for this measure, and if he had seen ingrafted in their -constitution the conditions and restrictions contained in the ordinance -upon which they found the right they were claiming; but he knew that -unanimity was in no instance to be expected amongst a people so numerous -and scattered; and he was convinced that they were bound by the -conditions and limitations he alluded to, without an acknowledgment and -repetition of them in their new charter. - -Mr. DEARBORN said, as to the census relative to representation, it -appeared doubtful, that, because that Territory had now 66,000 -inhabitants, they were entitled to two Representatives, as the other -States of the Union were represented according to the number of -inhabitants they contained in the year 1790. It might be doubtful -whether they should be entitled to an advantage which was not allowed to -other States. It had been his opinion (and he saw no reasons to change) -that if this Territory was admitted into the Union, it was not entitled -to more than one Representative; and therefore it was not necessary to -make another census. As to passing a previous law recognizing the -Territory as a State before it was admitted into the Union, he did not -think it necessary. They say they are now a State, and surely Congress -would not say to them, You shall not be a State, or dictate to them what -sort of a constitution they shall have, provided it be a Republican. The -method taken for ascertaining their number of inhabitants, he thought, -could not be objected to. He saw no reason to prevent them from -accepting the Territory as a State of the Union: what number of -Representatives they were entitled to, would turn upon another point. - -Mr. BLOUNT said the House should have determined upon this question long -since, as the government of Tennessee had a month ago gone into -operation. The people there had chosen not only their State officers, -but their Senators, and perhaps their Representatives, to come to -Congress. The Governor had, from time to time, informed the PRESIDENT OF -THE UNITED STATES of every step taken towards the proposed change of -government. In July, he sent him a copy of the law directing the census -to be taken; in November, when the census was completed, he sent him a -copy of it, and a copy of his Proclamation requiring the people to elect -members of Convention for the purpose of forming a constitution and -State Government; and on the 19th of February he sent him a copy of the -constitution, with notice that on the 28th of March, when the General -Assembly of the State of Tennessee would meet to act on the -constitution, the temporary government would cease; and this last -information was, to his knowledge, received on the 28th of -February--forty days before it was communicated by the PRESIDENT to -Congress, and eleven days after it must have been known to the Secretary -of State, if not to the PRESIDENT, that the State Government had gone -into operation. - -What would be the consequence, said Mr. B., of refusing at this time, -and under these circumstances, to receive this State into the Union? Did -gentlemen wish to re-establish a temporary Territorial Government there? -If they did, he believed their wish would not easily be accomplished; -for the people there believed, that in changing their government, they -only exercised a right which had been secured to them by a sacred -compact; and under that belief, they will be disposed to defend it. That -right was, in his opinion, recognized by the Government of the United -States, when Mr. WHITE was permitted to take his seat in that House as -the Representative of the Territory; and from that circumstance they had -reason to expect that 67,000 inhabitants would have entitled them, -without scruple, to be a member of the Union. If the census was not a -just one, or if there had been any fraud used in taking it, an -impeachment would lie against the Governor, who, upon his responsibility -as an officer of the United States, sanctioned the law for taking it, -and acted under it after it was taken. - -Mr. W. LYMAN said the subject presented itself in two points of view--as -it related to the Territory being admitted as a State into the Union, or -as giving them a right to send members to Congress. In his opinion, -according to the ordinance of Congress, they had a clear right to be -admitted as a State into the Union; for it was there said, that when -they had 60,000 inhabitants, they should be entitled. No mode is pointed -out how it shall be ascertained; but the Governor being expressly -mentioned in the case where 5,000 inhabitants were to entitle them to a -temporary Government, he thought there could be no doubt but the same -way was to be observed with respect to their qualification for becoming -one of the States of the Union. This fact, he said, came fully -ascertained, and being so, there could be no doubt the right was clear. -It was a right, indeed, which they could not deny, and, as a matter of -expediency, it was not worth while to oppose it. He saw no reason why -they should call in question the proceedings or the purity of the -government of that Territory, so as to doubt their return. - -Mr. DAYTON said that he preferred the formation of the South-western -Territory into one State, to a division of it into two, and he therefore -did not agree with those gentlemen who had advocated the latter idea. -The people had requested to be united into one State, and he was for -complying with their request, and for taking them at their word, rather -than by subdividing to give them a double representation in the Senate. - -Mr. SEDGWICK concurred in opinion with the gentleman from New Jersey -(Mr. DAYTON); and if any gentleman understood him to say that he did -not wish the State of Tennessee to be admitted into the Union, it must -have been an error, for he had no such desire. But he was still -persuaded that it was never intended that that Territory should have the -power of settling the way by which they were to become one of the -independent States. - -What had been said by a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) of their -being in a degraded situation, because controlled by laws which were -made by persons independent of them, would not only apply to 60,000, but -to six persons. The question was whether they were in a situation in -which they could claim to be a State? If they were, they ought to be -admitted; if not, they ought not to be admitted. If the idea of the -gentleman from New Jersey was adopted, they might be admitted at an -early period. He had no idea of charging Governor Blount with improper -conduct: he was entitled to his respect. If it was intended that these -people should decide upon their own situation, they ought to do it in -the way observed in cases directed by the constitution. Mr. S. proposed -two resolutions--one for laying out territory into a State or States, -and another for directing a census of the inhabitants to be taken. - -It appeared to him that this was the way in which the subject should be -considered: they should determine whether the Territory should be in one -or two States, and before Representatives were sent to Congress, a -census would be taken by authority of Congress. Words could not, he -thought, have rendered more explicit the intention of the contracting -parties than the words of the compact; and all this might be done in -time for Representatives to be sent to the next session of Congress. - -Mr. MACON said the chief differences in the opinions of gentlemen arose -upon a subject which was not before the committee, viz: the number of -Representatives to which this new State was entitled in that House. The -question before the committee was on admitting the Territory to be a -State of the Union. There appeared to him only two things as necessary -to be inquired into: First, Was the new Government Republican? It -appeared to him to be so. And, secondly, Were there 60,000 inhabitants -in the Territory? It appeared to him there were; and, if so, their -admission as a State should not be considered as a gift, but as a right. -Their temporary government (by whose authority the late census was -taken) had not only a Governor appointed by the Executive of the General -Government, but also a Legislative Council. To admit this Territory as a -member of the Union, appeared to him as a matter of course. It also -seemed as if the Executive was of that opinion. The PRESIDENT, having -been duly informed from time to time with the proceedings of that -Territory towards being admitted into the Union, if he had thought they -had been doing wrong, he would have set them right. It was also his -opinion, that if they had passed a law directing a census to be taken, -it would have been done exactly in the way the present had been taken. -He thought the subject of navigation was settled by the Constitution of -the United States; the waters in that country would be under the same -regulations with all other waters in the Union, nor did he think there -was any thing in the Constitution of Tennessee which had a contrary -tendency. It appeared clearly to him that every thing had been fairly -done, and that they had a right to claim an admission as a member of the -Union. - -Mr. BALDWIN said, had he belonged to the Territory south of the Ohio, he -should probably have been for pursuing a different mode of conducting -this business, from that which it seems they have thought proper to -adopt. He should have thought it desirable, a year or two ago, to have -obtained from Congress an act pointing out the mode of taking the -census, and ascertaining the events on which they were entitled to -become a State. He said Congress ought also, of their own accord, to -have taken up that subject, and made those provisions, though not -requested by the Territory; and it had always been with surprise he had -observed that the first act for forming that Territory did not contain -those provisions. He thought, as to the principle in this case there -could be no doubt. Whenever the event happened of their having 60,000 -inhabitants, as pointed out by law, their right to be a State took -place. It was to depend entirely on that contingency; when that was -proved to have taken place, they could not be debarred. There having -been no mode previously pointed out for ascertaining this fact, only -makes it more difficult for the Territory and for Congress to be -satisfied of the fact of their actually having so many inhabitants, but -does not affect their right. He thought it best for the House to proceed -to examine their census and the evidence which they had thought proper -to collect and bring forward in their own way. He was ready to allow -that, for himself, he should examine it more scrupulously than he should -have done, had it been taken under a law of Congress. But he had not -understood many objections had yet been made to it. Perhaps, on further -examination, it will be found fully satisfactory; if so, they must be -admitted to be a State as a matter of right. They might have waited -longer, and attempted to have formed two States; they have made their -election of the other alternative. He thought it wise for Congress to -avail itself of this opportunity of holding them to what they have -chosen, and thus prevent future difficulties and misunderstandings. - -Mr. W. SMITH said he was glad to find the observations which he made -yesterday in some measure sanctioned to-day. He then recapitulated his -leading arguments. It was said yesterday by a gentleman from Virginia, -(Mr. MADISON,) that whilst the people of the Territory remained in their -colonial situation, they were in a state of degradation; but, he would -ask, at whose request they became so? Look at their request in the year -1790, as expressed in the cession act. And yet, in the course of a few -years, without consulting Congress, in consequence of a census taken by -their own authority, they proceed to erect themselves into a State, -create a new government, and claim to be admitted into the Union as -matter of right. Under their former government their member was admitted -to that House; yet, whilst he holds his seat under that government, they -have appointed other members to represent them under their new -Government. The most regular way would certainly have been to have -transmitted their request to Congress to be formed into a State. -Congress would then have passed a law for taking a census, have fixed -when the Territorial system should cease and the State Government -commence. - -He thought the business was of considerable consequence, and he was -sorry it was taken up in so thin a House. There would certainly arise in -a few years other new States in the Western country yet uninhabited, -which might occasion considerable difficulties. They might make a census -and say they had 60,000 inhabitants, when they had not half that number. -He did not wish to keep the inhabitants of the South-western Territory -out of the Union, but he wished them to be admitted in a constitutional -mode. - -Mr. GALLATIN was of opinion that the people of the South-western -Territory became _ipso facto_ a State the moment they amounted to 60,000 -free inhabitants, and that it became the duty of Congress, as part of -the original compact, to recognize them as such, and to admit them into -the Union, whenever they had satisfactory proof of the fact. - -It was objected that, previous to the proof of that fact being given, it -was necessary that Congress should have laid out and formed that -Territory into one or more States, and that the proof of their number -should have been given under direction and by order of Congress, the -people not being competent to give the proof themselves. - -Both those objections suppose a construction of the original compact -between the people of that Territory and the United States, (of the act -of cession of North Carolina, and of the ordinance of Congress of 1787,) -which was inadmissible; for it rendered that compact binding upon one -party and not upon the other. It is supposed that that ordinance, whose -object it was to establish the principles of a free government, and to -ascertain a certainty of admission into the Union, had declared that the -time when those people were to enjoy that government, and were to be -admitted as a member of the Union, depended not on the contingency of -their having 60,000 free inhabitants, but on certain previous acts of -Congress--in other words, on the sole will of Congress. Either you must -acknowledge that their admission depends solely on the condition of the -compact being fulfilled, to wit: their having the number required; or -you declare that it rests upon another act, which may be done or refused -by the other party; that Congress have the power, by neglecting to lay -them out into one or more States, or by refusing to pass a law to take a -census, to keep them for ever in their colonial state. Nor did the -strictest interpretation of that contract justify the construction given -by the gentleman from South Carolina; for the only meaning that could -consistently be given to the words, "lay out and form into one or more -States," was, that Congress had power to fix the boundaries of the -Territory or Territories that were to become a State or States. They -could have declared that that Territory should be one or two States; but -if they had neglected to do it, their omission could not be plead -against the inhabitants of Tennessee. The power given by that clause to -Congress was merely to fix boundaries, and to choose whether there -should be more than one State; but if they had not made use of that -power, there must be one State, and its boundaries were fixed by the act -of cession, so that nothing remained now for Congress to operate upon. - -Mr. BLOUNT said, there was an absolute necessity for the clause which -the gentleman last up objected to. Persons were daily coming to that -Territory in great numbers. If the census had been required to be taken -in one day all the people who had come into the Territory, with the -intention to reside permanently there, could by no means have been -numbered. It was not intended to give the officers power to take persons -in more places than one, nor did he believe it had been done. He -undertook to explain yesterday the reason why so long a time was given, -but he seemed not to have been understood, which was, the difficulties -attending the passage of the wilderness. - -The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) had said, that his -arguments of yesterday had been to-day admitted. If the gentleman had -supposed that he had admitted them, he was mistaken. That he might not -continue under the mistake, he would inform him, that what he had called -arguments, were, in his opinion, mere quibbles, such as could only have -been expected from a County Court lawyer, at the bar of a County Court. - -Mr. COIT said, that as he had not heard it suggested from any quarter -that it would be expedient to divide the Territory into two States, he -did not think it important to inquire into the powers of Congress in -that respect. It is declared by the ordinance for the government of the -Territory, that when there should be sixty thousand inhabitants in any -one of the States there they should be admitted into the Union. If, -then, it is not in contemplation to divide the Territory into two -States, he considered that the right to be admitted was complete as soon -as there was the requisite number within the whole Territory. But it -appeared to him, that on examining the census and the law under which -it was taken, they could not be considered as furnishing proof that -there was that number there. He did not pretend to say that any fraud -had been committed in the execution of the law, but the law itself was -wholly defective. The same man might have been counted in several -counties, nay, in every county in the Territory, and that without any -fraud, but in strict compliance with the law; two months having been -allowed for taking the enumeration, and it being enjoined on the -sheriffs of the several counties to include in their enumeration all -persons within their respective districts within that period. - -The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. BLOUNT) seemed to imagine that it -would have been impracticable to have followed a mode similar to the one -pointed out in the enumeration law of the United States, but he could -not see the reason. [He read the law.] - -Mr. SITGREAVES said, he felt every disposition favorable to meet the -wishes of the people of the South-western Territory, and for a reason -which had been given, viz: that, as they were our fellow-citizens, it -was desirable they should equally participate with us in all the -advantages of the General Government, and suffer no longer than was -necessary the comparative humiliation of a Colonial or Territorial -administration; but, from obvious considerations, he thought it highly -important that they should be admitted to the enjoyment of these -advantages only in conformity with the promise made to them, and on the -terms of the compact entered into jointly by the United States and by -them. Two constructions of this compact had been contended for; one, -that so soon as sixty thousand free inhabitants should be collected -within the Territory, they should be entitled to a place in the Union, -as an independent State; the other, that Congress should first lay off -the Territory into one or more States, according to a just discretion, -defining the same by bounds and limits; and that the admission of such -States thus defined, should take place as their population respectively -amounted to the number of free inhabitants mentioned; that is, that the -sixty thousand inhabitants could not claim admission into the Union, -unless their number was comprised within a State whose Territorial -limits had been previously ascertained by an act of the United States. -He inclined to this latter construction, because it was conformable to -the letter, and, as he understood it, to the spirit of the instrument. -By the act of cession of the State of North Carolina, accepted by -Congress, it is provided that the ceded territory should be laid off -into one or more States, and that the people of the Territory should be -entitled to all the privileges secured to the inhabitants of the -Territory north-west of the Ohio, by the ordinance of 1787. The extent -of their privileges, therefore, is to be determined by this ordinance, -which may be called their charter. They have no other or greater -privileges than the inhabitants of the North-western Territory; and it -cannot be pretended that these would be entitled to admission into the -Union as one State, so soon as their whole number shall amount to sixty -thousand, because the ordinance itself divides that country into three -separate and distinct States, each of which must contain sixty thousand -free inhabitants before it can claim to be received. The actual -circumstances and situation of the South-western Territory evinced the -reasonableness and propriety of the construction; it is composed of two -settlements, the Hoston and the Mero districts, separated from each -other by the Cumberland Mountains and a wilderness of two hundred miles -in width, which has always been inhabited by the Indians, and the soil -and jurisdiction of which have been actually ceded to them by the United -States, by late Treaties; and by an examination of the documents on the -table it would appear, that when, agreeably to the act of the -Territorial Legislature, the officers who took the census put to the -people of the Territory the question whether they were desirous of -admission into the Union; the inhabitants of the Western or Mero -district almost universally answered in the negative. He would not -undertake positively to pronounce on the inexpediency of forming the -whole country into one State; but under the circumstances which he had -stated, and until they should be satisfactorily explained to his mind, -it did appear to him that the interest and the wishes of that people -required a division of the Territory. It looked somewhat absurd to -connect under one permanent Government, people separated from each other -by natural barriers, by a distance of two hundred miles, and by a -foreign jurisdiction. They had been told, by gentlemen who knew the -fact, that during the period of Indian hostility, the people emigrating -to the Mero district were obliged to stop five or six weeks at the -eastern boundary of the wilderness, until they could collect in -companies or caravans of sufficient number and force to pass in safety; -the time of hostility may again return, and even a state of peace with -Indians is not a state of such tranquillity or security as to preclude -the necessity of caution and vigilance on the frontiers. The people of -the Western district seem sensible of the inconvenience of an -arrangement so unnatural as the one proposed, and so far as their wishes -can be collected from the documents before the committee, they desire as -yet to preserve their connection with us in its present mode, and to -remain under the Territorial Government. - -Mr. MACON said, he should be as unwilling to agree to the doctrine of -the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. DAYTON,) as he was unwilling to -agree to his. As to the people of this Territory attaching themselves to -any other nation, he should not have thought it could have been -suggested. There was no more likelihood of their going over to any other -government than there was of any other State doing the same thing. - -Mr. GALLATIN said, how the resolution on the table, or the doctrine he -had asserted, supported the idea that that Territory would have a right -to separate from the Union, he could not see, and he should be glad to -be informed. So far from it, his opinion was that if they were a State, -they were at the same time a member of the Union; that they could not -exist as a State without being one of the United States. The only -difference of opinion was whether an act of Congress was necessary -previous to their being recognized as such; and if any doctrine could -lead to the conclusion of the SPEAKER, it was that of those gentlemen -who thought that Congress must form them into a State, several months -before they were admitted into the Union. In that intermediary -situation, whilst declared a State and not one of the United States, -they might, perhaps, claim, as an independent State, a right to reject -an admission in the Union. But those consequences could only flow from -the doctrine he was combating; the principle he was supporting was that -no previous act was necessary, that there could not be two acts upon the -subject; but that one and the same act must recognize them as a State -and admit them in the Union. - -Mr. BLOUNT hoped the original resolution would not be rejected for the -sake of the gentleman from New Jersey. He did not wish to give up the -right to which these people were entitled; though perhaps the law might -not pass the Senate. - -Mr. HARPER objected to the mention of the Senate, as to what was likely -to be done there. He hoped they should adopt the resolution of the -gentleman from New Jersey. - -The question was then taken on the original resolution reported by the -select committee, and carried by 41 to 35. - -The committee rose and the House took up the consideration, when Mr. -KITCHELL proposed a resolution in the place of that which had been -agreed to in a Committee of the Whole, as he thought some law should be -passed by Congress recognizing the Territory as a State, before they -were admitted into the Union. It was negatived; and the original -resolution was agreed to by 43 to 30, as follows: - - YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, - Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, - Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, Jeremiah - Crabb, William Findlay, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, - William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, Wade - Hampton, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, - Jonathan N. Havens, Daniel Heister, James Holland, George - Jackson, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, - Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, - John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Francis - Preston, John Read, Robert Rutherford, Israel Smith, - Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sprigg, Absalom Tatom, Philip - Van Cortlandt, and Abraham Venable. - - NAYS.--Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Gabriel - Christie, Joshua Coit, George Dent, Abiel Foster, Dwight - Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, - Roger Griswold, Thomas Hartley, Thomas Henderson, James - Hillhouse, William Hindman, Aaron Kitchell, George Leonard, - Samuel Lyman, Francis Malbone, Theodore Sedgwick, Samuel - Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith, - William Smith, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, John E. Van - Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams. - - -SATURDAY, May 21. - -_Military Establishment._ - -The amendments of the Senate to the bill fixing the Military -Establishment were read. They went to the retaining the whole number of -light dragoons and the Major General, and directing that men should be -enlisted for five instead of three years. The amendment respecting the -dragoons being under consideration---- - -Mr. BALDWIN informed the House that the amount of the amendments of the -Senate was this, to keep up 320 dragoons instead of 52, and to retain -the Major General. It appeared to him that the House, having determined -upon these subjects already, would be at no loss to form an opinion upon -these amendments. - -Mr. WILLIAMS hoped that the amendment from the Senate would not be -agreed to. This House had taken great pains to mature the bill, and he -was of opinion that the number of troops agreed to was sufficient for a -peace establishment. No gentleman had observed to the contrary; any -addition would not only be an augmentation to the great expenses already -accrued by the late war, but be a mean of retaining in the army useful -citizens, who would be otherwise employed in pursuits of much more -benefit to the United States. - -Mr. W. LYMAN hoped the amendment would be disagreed to. - -Mr. S. SMITH said, the Senate seemed to contemplate these light -dragoons, on account of the officers, who were to do duty on horse or -foot, as necessity required. From this idea, he would suggest the -propriety of agreeing to the amendment. - -Mr. KITTERA said, the army would be placed so widely from each other, -that the horse would prove very useful. - -Mr. GILES had no idea of keeping up the horse for the sake of the -officers. - -Mr. GILBERT was in favor of retaining the whole number of horses. - -On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the yeas and nays were taken, and the -amendment was negatived, 58 to 22. - -The consideration of the propriety of retaining the Major General was -next taken up. - -Mr. NICHOLAS could not conceive any use for generals. He believed if the -Senate had struck out the General they sent them, the amendment would -have been a good one. - -Mr. GILES hoped they should not agree to the amendment. It would be a -commencement of sinecures in the Military Department. There would be -generals without men to command. He believed the bill, as sent from -that House, contained its full proportion of officers. - -Mr. S. SMITH was in favor of the amendment. He said the expense would be -no great things, and the present Major General would be very necessary -in taking possession of the posts. Perhaps, at this time, it was -essential to keep this man in command, as, if he were discharged, it -might create a derangement in our Army which might be fatal. The command -of three thousand men, it was true, was too trifling for a Major -General. But, perhaps, as this General had been the victorious means of -procuring us peace with the Indians, immediately to discharge him would -appear like ingratitude, if not injustice. - -Mr. RUTHERFORD concurred in opinion with the gentleman last up. - -Mr. W. LYMAN said, they were not now called upon to reward the services -of Major General Wayne, but to provide proper officers for their Army. -If the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) were to bring forward a -measure of that kind, they should know how to decide upon it. Nor did he -think the argument for making the office of a Major General, because the -posts were to be received, had much weight. Any other officer would -receive them as well as a Major General. - -Mr. GILES said, he had no personal objections to the present commander -of our Army; but he considered the present proposition such a breach of -principle as he could not agree to. It was the making of an office for a -man; as the gentleman from Maryland seemed to think the taking -possession of the posts the principal business to be performed by him. -If the services of this gentleman were necessary on that occasion, he -would much rather pass a bill to make him a commissioner for that -purpose. All the arguments in favor of a Major General were in favor of -the man, and not of the propriety of the office. - -Mr. MURRAY said, the gentleman last up must know that the gentleman who -had so successfully commanded our Western Army, was now in the service -of the United States, yet he would insinuate that there was an intention -of creating a new office. There was no disposition in those who wished -to retain this meritorious man in service to create new offices. They -were now about to make a regular Military Establishment; heretofore it -had rather been a nominal one. There had been hitherto a Major General -at the head of our corps, and he thought it would be proper to continue -the command. There appeared to him a great deal of danger from the -instability of their proceedings, an instability often charged upon a -Government like ours. He would not attribute this to any other motive -than such as were too apt to enter into large deliberative bodies. Was -it right that when a man had led our armies to victory, and returned, -that he should be immediately stripped of his commission? He thought -not. It was said that this was done, because the Army was reduced; but -he believed it was now as large as when General Wayne obtained his -victory by it, for it was not then more than three thousand men; and -yet, because they wished to retain this man in the service of the United -States, they were told that they were creating new offices for which -there was no necessity. - -Mr. NICHOLAS said, with respect to the instability of their measures, he -was ready to take his own share of it as well as that of the gentleman -last up, for he never found him vary from one point; he was always -desirous to keep up every office which had been once established. Mr. N. -thought the conduct of gentlemen extraordinary. At one time they were to -make our Establishment as large as possible, and when more favorable -circumstances appeared, they were not to reduce it. Where were the -benefits of peace, if they were still to keep up our War Establishments? -Gentlemen tell you that the Army would be as large now as before the -reduction, yet the same gentlemen were opposed to its being reduced to -the number now contemplated. This appeared something like inconsistency. -Mr. N. said, if they did not seize every favorable opportunity of -lessening the expenses of Government, he believed their constituents -would have good reason to complain of their want of attention to their -duty. - -Mr. MACON said, they ought to legislate on this subject as if there were -no Army in existence. They had no permanent Establishment, as their men -were discharged at the end of every three years. He believed our present -commander was a very respectable officer, but he could not vote for a -Major General in the Establishment, which he thought unnecessary, -because he thought him a deserving man. - -Mr. BOURNE believed it was not necessary to have any appropriate number -of men for a Major General to command. It had often been thought that a -Major General was necessary. He believed they had thought so on former -occasions. If any necessity should arise for the militia to be called -out to aid the Army, such an officer would be highly necessary. He did -not think it would be true economy to reject him. - -Mr. GALLATIN said it was not pleasing to give a vote which was in some -degree of a personal nature like the present. He was unacquainted with -the gentleman who now held the office of Major General in our Army, and, -therefore, was under no personal influence, and his opinion on the -subject was formed upon the information of those in whose judgment on -military affairs, he must necessarily confide, as it was a subject he -did not understand. It was supposed that a Major General was necessary -for a War Establishment, but not for a Peace Establishment. He drew this -conclusion from that grade ceasing with the war in 1783, and being again -introduced in 1791, when the Indian war had commenced, and he understood -it was more connected with the nature of the service than the number of -men. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) said that the nature of -the service of this summer, required the service of General Wayne; but -as the act they were about to pass would not take place till the 31st of -October, as it was the opinion of all gentlemen of military knowledge, -that there was no necessity for retaining a Major General in our reduced -Army Establishment after the posts had been taken possession of, and as -the whole summer appeared sufficient for that service, he would vote -against the amendment. - -Mr. HARTLEY thought it best to have a Major General. The expense was but -small, and in case of the militia being called out (as was mentioned by -the gentleman from Rhode Island) a Major General would be necessary; -besides, to reject him, would have the appearance of forcing this man -out of office in an ungenerous manner. - -On motion of Mr. BAILEY, the yeas and nays were then taken, and the -Senate's amendment was lost, 49 to 34. - - -MONDAY, May 23. - -_Widow of General Greene._ - -The House went into Committee of the Whole on the petition of Catharine -Greene, widow of the late General Greene, for indemnity against the -demands of Harris and Blachford, of London, merchants, on account of a -certain bond which had been given to them by General Greene, as was said -on account of the United States. The following was the report of the -Committee of Claims: - - "That this petitioner prays for indemnity against the - demands of Messrs. Harris and Blachford, merchants, who - have obtained a judgment against the estate of the late - General Greene, for a large sum, in consequence of his - being security to the said Harris and Blachford, for the - debt of John Banks & Co., which debt, she states, was - incurred for, and in behalf of the United States; and that - General Greene gave security for no other purpose than to - forward the interests of the public. - - "On a strict investigation of this claim, the committee - find, that in the fall of 1782, General Greene was - authorized by the Department of War to obtain supplies of - clothing for the Southern Army, then under his command; - and, not long after, he contracted with John Banks, a - partner in the house of Hunter, Banks & Co., for such - supplies. - - "In February, 1783, General Greene, under authority of the - Superintendent of Finance, contracted with the same John - Banks, to furnish such provisions as the same army were in - want of; both of which contracts met the approbation of his - employers. - - "Both these contracts required greater funds than the - contractors could command, and the last, which was to - supply rations for the army, was near being defeated, - because the creditors--for supplies on the former - contract--were about to deprive the contractors of their - means to fulfil the last. In this situation, Gen. Greene - had before him the alternative of turning the army loose - upon the inhabitants, to plunder for their necessary food, - or support, by his own credit, that of the contractors. He - preferred the latter, and gave, in addition to the security - of John Banks & Co., his own bond to Harris and Blachford, - to secure an eventual payment for articles which had gone - to the use of the United States in clothing the army. - - "John Banks received of the United States the whole sum of - the contract, but diverted the money from its proper - channel, and left General Greene liable to pay the sum - secured by the bond mentioned above, and another to Messrs. - Newcomen and Collet. Banks & Co. became bankrupts, and, - soon after, Banks died. - - "The committee find that General Greene, as soon as he was - apprised of any possible danger which might accrue to him, - took measures to procure some security; but his attempts - were ineffectual as to a complete indemnity. It appears he - effected some payments, and obtained partial indemnity, but - was left finally exposed to a large claim of Messrs. - Newcomen and Collet, and this bond about which the present - petition is conversant. - - "Against the claim of Newcomen and Collet, Congress have - indemnified the estate of General Greene, by an act passed - April 27th, 1792. - - "This act has served as a precedent to the committee, in - deciding on the present petition, as there are the same - reasons existing for the interference of Government now as - then; to which may now be added the weight of precedent. - - "For further particulars as to the merits of the claim, the - committee ask leave to refer the House to a report of the - Secretary of the Treasury, made to Congress on this - subject, the 26th December, 1791, and which is herewith - laid before them. The bond given by Gen. Greene to Harris - and Blachford for J. Banks & Co., is dated 8th April, 1783, - for the sum of £18,473, 13s. 7d. South Carolina currency. - This sum, by a variety of negotiations and payments, has - been considerably reduced; the committee have not been able - to ascertain with precision the sum now due, but suppose it - to be between eleven and twelve thousand pounds. - - "The committee are of opinion that General Greene gave this - bond with the sole and honorable motive of serving, to his - utmost ability, the then pressing interest of the United - States: and that the salvation of the Southern Army, and - success of our arms in that part of the Union, in a great - measure depended upon this timely interference of his - private credit. - - "They think the honor and justice of Government is pledged - to indemnify the estate of General Greene, and by paying - the sum due to Harris and Blachford, save a deserving - family from indigence and ruin. They therefore report, for - the consideration of the House, the following resolution, - viz: - - "_Resolved_, That the United States ought to indemnify the - estate of the late General Greene, for the sum due on a - bond, given by the said General Greene to Harris and - Blachford, bearing date April 8, 1783, for the sum of - £18,473, 13s. 7d., South Carolina currency, as surety for - John Banks & Co.: _Provided_, That it shall appear, upon - due investigation, by the officers of the Treasury, that - the said General Greene, in his lifetime, or his executors - since his decease, have not already been indemnified, for - the contents of the said bond: _And provided_, That the - said executors shall make over to the Comptroller of the - Treasury, and his successors, for the United States, all - mortgages, bonds, covenants, or other counter securities - whatsoever, if such there are, which were obtained by - General Greene in his lifetime, from the said Banks & Co., - or either of them, on account of his being surety for - them, as aforesaid; to be sued for in the name of the said - executors, for the use of the United States: And the - officers of the Treasury are hereby authorized to liquidate - and settle the sum due to the estate of the said General - Greene, to indemnify the same as aforesaid, according to - the true intent and meaning of this resolution; and to pay - such sum as may be found due on the said bond, out of the - Treasury of the United States, to the said executors, to be - accounted for by them, as part of the said estate." - -After some debate on this subject, in the course of which the SPEAKER -read, in his place, a letter he had received from the Secretary of the -War Department, in consequence of a resolution passed on Saturday, -calling for a letter which had been written by the late Colonel Burnett -to the late Secretary of War, declaring that no such letter could be -found in the War Office; and Mr. COIT spoke at considerable length -against the claim--at length the question was put and carried in favor -of the report, there being 51 members in the affirmative. The committee -then rose, and the House took up the consideration, when, on motion of -Mr. BLOUNT, who said he had intended to have made some observations on -this subject, but finding the majority so large in favor of the report, -he could not believe what he should say would have any effect, the yeas -and nays were taken and stood, yeas 56, nays 26, as follows: - - YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel - Benton, Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Richard - Brent, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Cooper, - Jeremiah Crabb, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel - Gilbert, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn, - Chauncey Goodrich, Christopher Greenup, Robert Goodloe - Harper, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. - Havens, John Heath, Daniel Heister, William Hindman, George - Jackson, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Lyman, - Francis Malbone, John Milledge, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, - William Vans Murray, Anthony New, John Nicholas, John Read, - Robert Rutherford, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, - Israel Smith, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith, - Richard Sprigg, jr., John Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, George - Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Uriah Tracy, John - E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Peleg - Wadsworth, and John Williams. - - NAYS.--Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell, - Gabriel Christie, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, George Dent, - Samuel Earle, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, James - Gillespie, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, Wade Hampton, - George Hancock, Thomas Henderson, James Holland, Aaron - Kitchell, Matthew Locke, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, - Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, Absalom - Tatom, and Richard Winn. - -The resolution was referred to the Committee of Claims, to report a -bill. - -[The facts, as stated in the course of debate, were as follows: - -A little time before the evacuation of Charleston by the English, in the -fall of the year 1782, a number of merchants who had settled there, -under British authority, were under the necessity of leaving the city. -Thus situated, these merchants were willing to dispose of their goods in -a way that would secure their money, and enable them to leave the -country immediately. John Banks knowing of this, and being, it is said, -a man of a speculative disposition, determined to avail himself of this -offer. He therefore went into Charleston, at a time when General Greene -was lying not far from its walls, and there made a contract with Messrs. -Harris & Blachford for goods to the amount of £50,000, which were -delivered to him under the firm of Hunter, Banks & Co. After Banks had -made this purchase, he entered into contract with General Greene to -supply the Army with clothes. Some time after that contract had taken -place, the Army was in want of provisions, and the supplies were cut -off, and about to fail, when Banks came forward and made a contract to -supply the Army with provisions; but the funds which were to enable him -to fulfil this contract, were in the goods he had lately bought, and an -interference of his partners and creditors took place. The creditors -were afraid if these goods were disposed of for that purpose, their -security would be lessened, and his partners were not willing that he -should convert their joint property to his own particular benefit--for -they, it seems, were to have nothing to do with the provision contract. -To surmount these difficulties, security was required. The creditors of -Banks would be satisfied, if security was given. In this state of -things, General Greene became security for Banks, in his first purchase. -Banks afterwards received the whole sum of the contract, but diverted -the money from its proper channel, and left General Greene liable to pay -the sum secured by the bond to Harris & Blachford. - -The question in the committee was, whether General Greene entered into -this security with the sole view of obtaining provisions for his Army in -a time of distress, or whether he had some concern or partnership in the -transaction. The following particulars were mentioned, to prove that the -security was given for no other purpose than that of obtaining food for -his men. The first purchase of Banks was made in September, 1782; the -evacuation of Charleston took place in December following. Banks's -clothing contract was made a few days previous to the evacuation; his -proposal for the provision contract was made about the same time, but -not actually entered into till the 18th of February, 1783, and not -completed till General Greene's security was given on the 8th of April. -On the 7th of May, General Greene got a counter security. It could not -be seen, as was observed, for what purpose General Greene entered into -this contract, if it were not for the relief of his army. Had General -Greene been a partner, would he have required security of Banks six -months after the contract, when business was going on extremely -well--when Banks was in good credit, and making money, and when no doubt -could be entertained of him? It was insisted he would not: but, having -no connection with him, he thought it prudent to obtain a counter -security. - -On the other hand, various suggestions were thrown out which had -somewhat of a suspicious appearance--such as General Greene's forcing -his men to buy clothing, &c., of Banks, at an exorbitant price, reports -in the Army, a letter said to be written by the late Colonel Burnett, -who, it appears, was a partner of John Banks, intimating that General -Greene was a partner in the concern, though his name was never mentioned -in it; but nothing like proof appeared to the committee upon which to -ground any reliance. Indeed, if General Greene had any concern with -Banks, it seemed to be a matter which could not be proved, as, in -General Greene's lifetime, he brought an action against Mr. Ferry, one -of the partners with Banks, which was tried at Charleston, when every -thing in Mr. Ferry's cause depended on proving General Greene a partner; -but he failed in doing it, and having failed, it was said to be pretty -strong presumptive evidence that it could not be proved; because Mr. -Ferry might have brought a cross bill against General Greene, and oblige -him to declare on oath that he was in no way interested in the suit, -which he did not think it proper to do. - -The report of the committee was at length agreed to, as before stated, -and a bill ordered to be brought in, which subsequently passed. By this -decision, between £11,000 and £12,000 sterling will be paid out of the -Treasury of the United States to the executors of General Greene. The -yeas and nays, on the passing of the bill, stood, 55 to 24.] - - -FRIDAY, May 27. - -_Amy Dardin's Horse._[79] - -On motion of Mr. CLAIBORNE, the House formed itself into a Committee of -the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of -Amy Dardin, who prayed for compensation for a very valuable horse which -had been impressed during the war. The report was against the -petitioner, on the ground of the act of limitation barring the claim. -The case appeared a hard one, as a widow and orphans were in want of the -money; and several members having suggested that application had been -made before the act of limitation took place, proof of which could be -substantiated, the committee rose, and the papers were recommitted to -the Committee of Claims. - - -MONDAY, May 30. - -_Military and Naval Appropriations._[80] - -The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill providing -appropriations for the Military and Naval Establishments; when, - -On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the blank for the sum for the payment of the -Army was filled with $273,666. - -Mr. W. SMITH proposed to fill up the next blank, for the subsistence of -the officers of the Army, with $68,480. - -Mr. GALLATIN said, he was not ready to vote for this object. It had been -usual to appropriate the subsistence of the officers and -non-commissioned officers and privates all in one sum. He did not know -what were the separate calculations. - -Mr. W. SMITH believed that it had been usual to put the two subjects -together heretofore, but the Secretary of War had suggested the -propriety of placing them under different heads. It was therefore done. - -Mr. GALLATIN said, when he objected to this plan of putting the two -objects together, it was not merely on account of the arrangement, but -because he did not know the amount calculated for the different -descriptions. He knew, however, the rations were calculated at 30 cents. -He would move to fill the blank with 20 cents, which would be two-thirds -of the amount proposed. He would give his reasons for thus filling the -blank. It would be found, by a communication from the Secretary of the -Treasury at the commencement of the session, that, in the estimate for -the Military Department, rations were charged 15 cents each, making the -whole subsistence for 6,000 men $367,061; notwithstanding the nominal -Army Establishment had been reduced one-half, the total amount of -expense was estimated as high as before. The items upon which an -increase had been made, were subsistence, hospital, ordnance, and -quartermaster's departments, and protection of frontiers. It would be -found that, in the second estimate of the Secretary, lately made, -rations were estimated at 30 cents each, which made the whole amount of -subsistence $437,762. - -This difference in the estimate led the Committee of Ways and Means to -an inquiry into the business, because, as the nominal establishment was -decreased from 6,000 to 3,000 men, they had hoped there would have been -some decrease of expense also. They received for answer, that rations -could not be contracted at Detroit for less than 30 cents each; but -though this, by the contract, was the price of rations at that post, -they could not suppose they would cost the same at the other posts. It -also appeared, from the information received from the Secretary of the -Treasury, that the contract which had been made, was upon these -terms--to furnish rations either at Detroit at 30 cents, or at Pittsburg -at 11 cents, the place of delivery being at the option of Government. It -would be seen that there was a difference betwixt those two prices of -19 cents; and he would ask whether any gentleman in that House believed -that it would cost 19 cents per ration to transport them from Pittsburg -to Detroit? He did not think that transportation would, on an average, -cost 9 cents. The distance by land was not 200 miles; and water carriage -would reduce it to 20. - -Mr. W. SMITH said, if agreeing to this motion would save the money, it -would deserve attention; but, if they were to make the appropriation so -small as to embarrass Government, it would be much worse than if they -were to vote for a little too much. There would be a certain number of -men who must be fed, and he thought they might rely upon the -Administration's not giving more for rations than was necessary. But, if -the sum voted was too small, what would be the consequence? The rations -must be got, be the prices what they may; the men must be fed. -Difficulties would arise if the fund appropriated should prove -inadequate. He did not see that there would be any real saving by -reducing the sum appropriated. - -Mr. BOURNE hoped the blank would be filled up with the sum proposed by -the gentleman from South Carolina. It had been stated that rations might -be purchased at Pittsburg for 11 cents, but they could not be bought for -less than 30 at Detroit, and he thought they could not calculate upon -any other price than that, as it was uncertain whether or not the -contract would be fulfilled; and if it failed, and the Secretary of the -Treasury was obliged to purchase at Detroit, if they calculated the -rations at 20 cents only, he would not be able to purchase the necessary -provisions for their men; but if, on the contrary, 30 cents were agreed -to, there would be enough in any case, and if the ration could be bought -for 20 cents, he did not fear that the money would be expended -unnecessarily. - -Mr. VENABLE said he should not feel himself justified in appropriating -more than was necessary for the object before them; for, if they were -not to be guided by a proper estimate, they might as well at once give -an unlimited power on the Treasury. All the expenses could not be -estimated to be made at Detroit. If one-third of our men were kept at -Detroit, he should think it a large number. Why, then fix the price as -if the whole Army was to be kept there? And, even in that case, 20 cents -would be a large appropriation. Why, then, embarrass themselves by -making a larger appropriation than was necessary? The Army would be -extended on the whole frontier, and at some places rations would be -bought cheaper than at Pittsburg. - -Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) observed, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania -(Mr. GALLATIN) assumed as undeniable, and established as the foundation -of his arguments and objections, what he did not only not admit, but -absolutely denied, viz: that the rations of provisions would cost the -United States more when delivered at Detroit, than at any other post. He -believed there were two or three others at which the price would be -higher than at Detroit, and mentioned Michilimacinac in particular. The -gentlemen who were for reducing this item of appropriation, had referred -to the contract which had been made some time since, and had, at the -same time, acknowledged the extraordinary advance in the price of the -necessaries of life, even in the interior of the country. The latter -event, said Mr. D., was of a nature to excite much fear that the -contract would be thrown back upon the United States, owing to the -inability it would create in the individuals to fulfil it, and ought, -therefore, to prompt Congress to guard against such an exigency, by a -more ample provision than would otherwise have been requisite. - -Mr. W. SMITH said there was one fact which he forgot to mention. The -Secretary of the Treasury informed the Committee of Ways and Means that -the contractor would lose money by the contract to deliver the rations -at 11 cents at Pittsburg, and it was possible, therefore, that it might -not be fulfilled. Gentlemen say--why provide the money if it be not -wanted? They seemed to mistake the business; the money was to be -borrowed, and if not wanted, it would not be taken. No more would be -expended because there was more than sufficient appropriated. There -would be no money lying unemployed in the Treasury. - -Mr. GALLATIN believed the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) -would not deny that his information was correct. The contract was made -to deliver the rations either at Pittsburg or Detroit, at the option of -Government. To calculate the whole number of rations at 30 cents, was -considering the whole Army at Detroit; and, though it be true, that -there be one post more distant than Detroit, yet, the greater number -were far nearer, and consequently, where provisions would be got -cheaper. Therefore, considering the price at Detroit to be the general -price, was allowing too much. This, he believed, would not be -controverted. - -Mr. NICHOLAS said, he should be glad to know what was the price of -rations in the Atlantic States. One half of the Establishment would be -upon the Eastern waters, and, therefore, the money necessary to be -appropriated would depend, in some degree, upon the price of rations -there. He thought 20 cents would be a full average price for the whole. - -Mr. HAVENS said, that if they were to fix the price too high, it might -produce a combination amongst the contractors to advance the price--as -he believed there was a greater likelihood of combination than -competition amongst them. He knew this was no reason why they should fix -the price too low, but he thought it was a consideration which should -lead them to vote for the proposition of the gentleman from -Pennsylvania. - -The original motion was put, and negatived, 34 to 31; and then Mr. -GALLATIN's, to fill the blank with $45,606, was put, and carried. - -Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the next blank, for the subsistence of -non-commissioned officers and privates, with $369,282, which was -calculating the rations at 30 cents each. - -The question was put, and negatived, 33 to 30. - -Mr. GALLATIN then moved to have the blank filled with $246,188, which -was calculating the rations at 20 cents each. - -Mr. DAYTON hoped that the sum named would not be agreed to; if it were, -he believed that the soldiers of the Army would not be subsisted. He was -satisfied that gentlemen who proposed and advocated so scanty and -inadequate sums had the same views as he had; but he was, nevertheless, -convinced, that so far from promoting economy, they would eventually -produce profusion. - -Mr. DAYTON concluded with saying, that he did not wish to appropriate -lavishly, but his sole aim was to avoid any of those serious -consequences which would inevitably flow from an ill-judged parsimony; -and he should sit down and console himself under any event, with the -reflection, that he had discharged his duty. - -Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the blank with $360,000, which was carried, -34 to 31. - -On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the blank for forage was filled with $16,592, -and that for clothing was filled with $70,000, without debate. He -proposed to fill the blank for providing horses for cavalry, with -$7,500; when - -Mr. BLOUNT observed, that he thought it unnecessary to provide for the -purchase of horses, when they had resolved upon reducing the number of -troops. - -Mr. GALLATIN said he would just notice, that when the full number of -horses was kept up, the appropriations for clothing were the same as -now, and those for horses were less. The former estimate was $6,000 for -horses; now, $7,500; so that the more they reduce the Army, the greater -was the expense. - -Mr. MACON believed, there were as many horses now in the service as -would complete two companies, and they could not, with any propriety, -calculate upon one-half dying. He moved to strike out the item -altogether. - -The motion was put and negatived, 33 to 26. - -Mr. HAVENS said, he did not vote for striking out the item altogether, -as he supposed some money would be wanted, but could not think so much -as had been mentioned was necessary. - -The motion for $7,509 was put and carried, 34 to 31. - -On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the blank for bounty was filled with $10,000, -and that for Hospital Department with $30,000, without objection. He -also proposed to fill the blank for the Ordnance Department with -$48,907, when - -Mr. GALLATIN said, that this sum was $11,000 more than the former -estimate; $1,000 of which was owing to an increase of rent. The other -additional item of $10,000 was for contingent expenses; but, as they had -a distinct head for contingent expenses he thought that the -contingencies would be best, all of them, placed under that head. He -therefore moved to have the blank filled with $38,907. - -Mr. WILLIAMS proposed $40,000, which was carried. - -Mr. W. SMITH proposed to fill the blank for the Indian Department with -$70,000. - -Mr. GALLATIN said, it would be recollected that they had already made -two appropriations under this head; the one for establishing -trading-houses with the Indian tribes, the other for carrying into -effect several treaties. On inquiry what reason there was for this -appropriation, he could only find one, viz: that a treaty was expected -to be held in Georgia, at which 3,000 Indians were to be present. He had -supposed this expense was to have been borne by Georgia, but it was -alleged that a part of it would fall on the United States. - -The motion was put and negatived, 33 to 26; when - -Mr. W. SMITH proposed $60,000. He would mention, that the Secretary of -War had been called upon to give a reason why so large a sum should be -appropriated; when they were told of the treaty which the gentleman from -Pennsylvania had mentioned, and that it would be necessary to have a -large store for the purpose of feeding and clothing the Indians who -attended it. The motion was then put and carried, 31 to 28. - -Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the blank for the Quartermaster's Department -with $250,000. - -Mr. GALLATIN said, it would be remembered that in the estimate at the -opening of the session, this item was calculated at $200,000. The reason -given for this advance, was, that the expense of removing stores, -ordnance, &c., to new posts, would be very considerable; but, it would -be recollected, that $200,000 only were appropriated for that purpose in -the time of war, when the Army was liable to be removed very often. The -present estimate was for a Peace Establishment, when their men, once -removed to the new posts, would be stationed; and the appropriation, -instead of for 6,000 men, was now only for 3,000. He moved to insert -$200,000, instead of $250,000. - -Mr. BLOUNT said, he supposed the taking possession of the posts was -contemplated when the first estimate was made. It was then known the -British had stipulated to surrender them on the 1st of June. - -Mr. W. SMITH said, it was not certain when the first estimate was made, -whether that House would have ratified the treaty; and, if not ratified, -the posts would not have been got. The increased calculation was owing -to the expense in transporting ordnance, stores, &c., to the posts. - -Mr. ISAAC SMITH said, it would require more cannon for one of those -posts, than were required by all the Army. - -Mr. BLOUNT said, they had had sufficient proof to lead them to believe, -that the PRESIDENT did not think that House had the power mentioned by -the gentleman from South Carolina, and, therefore, he doubted not but -the first estimate was made with reference to the expense of taking -possession of the posts. - -The motion for $250,000 was put and negatived, 31 to 26; when $200,000 -was put and carried. - -Mr. W. SMITH, moved to fill the blank for contingencies of the War -Department with $30,000; which was carried without opposition. He then -proposed to fill the blank for the defence and protection of the -frontiers with $150,000. - -Mr. GALLATIN said, he certainly wished the frontier to be protected, but -he could not think so large a sum necessary for that purpose. The sum -last year appropriated was $130,000; and now we had peace with the -Indians, which was secured not only by a treaty with them, but by -treaties with Great Britain and Spain, he could not account for an -increased expense. - -The motion for $150,000 was put and negatived; $130,000 was then -proposed and carried, 34 to 33. - -Mr. W. SMITH proposed to fill the next blank, for the completion of the -fortifications, &c., at West Point, with $20,000. - -Mr. NICHOLAS inquired if there was any law on this head? - -Mr. W. SMITH said, there was an act to authorize a provision for this -purpose, but that act had expired. He believed, however, it might -properly come in there. This expense, he was told, was necessary to make -the posts tenable, and that if no money was expended, the fortifications -would be lost. He believed this item might properly be considered as a -part of the Military Establishment. - -Mr. NICHOLAS said, he did not object to the propriety of the expense, -but to the manner of introducing it. It would apply to New York as well -as West Point. He considered the admission of West Point as the -admission of a principle to which all the surplus appropriations might -be applied. All the fortifications, he said, were in the power of the -Executive; but, as they had had a committee appointed on the business, -whose report they had considered, he thought they should act -consistently. He therefore moved to strike out the clause. - -Mr. WILLIAMS hoped this item would not be struck out, and that the -PRESIDENT would be enabled to extend aid to the fortifications at New -York; if not, the works would go to decay. - -Mr. VAN CORTLANDT said, that fortifications ought to be attended to, and -that he should vote for them. - -Mr. GILES hoped the motion would prevail. There had been a committee -most of the session, to consider the subject of fortifications. If these -fortifications stood in need of repair, the PRESIDENT should have given -the information to that committee. He thought the item improper in the -present bill. - -Mr. GALLATIN believed the gentlemen from Virginia were mistaken. The -committee which had been appointed was to consider the fortifications of -our harbors only. The works at West Point were of a different -description, and the estimate included not only the completing of the -fortifications, but the building and repairs of barracks and stores -which had been destroyed. The present item could not extend to -fortifications in general, as had been apprehended; for, though the -Secretary of the department does not confine the money appropriated to -one object, to that particular purpose, yet, he cannot expend it on any -object which was not contained in the act of appropriation. He moved to -add, "magazines, store-houses, and barracks." Agreed to, and also the -sum. - -Mr. W. SMITH then moved to fill the blank for the fortification of forts -and harbors with $50,000. - -Mr. GALLATIN said, this item he should move to strike out. A committee -had been appointed, and had reported on this subject, and that it was -not necessary to attend to it at present, as there was a surplus of -$23,000 unexpended. If they were to agree to the present sum, it would -be appropriating an additional sum of $50,000 for the same object; he -hoped, therefore, that it would be struck out. - -Mr. W. LYMAN was in favor of striking it out. - -Mr. WILLIAMS hoped it would be agreed to, on the ground of the necessity -of some attention being paid to the works at New York. - -Mr. DAYTON was in favor of striking out this item altogether, as there -really was not money to spare for objects not essential. If any -particular harbor had been, or could be mentioned, the committee might -better be enabled to judge whether it would be fit, at this time, -pressed as they were for resources, to make an appropriation for -fortifying it, and how much. But, as he knew of none, and believed there -were no such, he should certainly be opposed to appropriating a single -shilling for this purpose. He meant not to say, that there were not -ports in the United States which might be advantageously fortified, but -only, that this country was not yet in a situation to justify their -encountering such an expense, especially as it did not appear to be -immediately necessary. - -The motion for striking out was put, and carried. - -Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the blank for the pay of officers, seamen, -and marines, with $113,025. - -Mr. NICHOLAS hoped this item would be struck out. It was certainly an -expense for which there was no occasion. He did not wish to see men -raised when they could be of no service. The frigates, he said, could -not be fit for service before the next session. He hoped, therefore, no -opposition would be made to the striking out of the clause. - -Mr. W. SMITH said, they had authorized by law the building of three -frigates, and it was wished that they should go into service the present -year. If the whole sum was not appropriated, there would certainly be a -necessity for a part of it. - -Mr. NICHOLAS moved to strike out the item as it stood, and insert, "the -pay of the captains of three frigates." - -Mr. MACON believed these were the only officers at present appointed. - -Mr. HAVENS wished gentlemen to say why these captains should be paid at -all. He believed that building of ships was not their business, and that -these places were at present mere sinecures. He should therefore vote -against the amendment. - -Mr. W. SMITH said, it would be necessary to add subsistence as well as -pay of three captains, and moved to fill the blank with five thousand -dollars; which, after a few observations, was agreed to. - -On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the blank for military pensions was filled, -without opposition, with $114,259. - -The committee then rose and the House entered upon the consideration of -the amendments which had been made, when all were agreed to, except -that relative to the subsistence of the non-commissioned officers and -privates.[81] - - -WEDNESDAY EVENING, June 1. - -Mr. J. SMITH, from the committee appointed to wait upon the PRESIDENT OF -THE UNITED STATES, to notify him of the intention of both Houses to -adjourn on this day, reported his approbation thereof. - -The business before the House being finished, a message was sent to the -Senate, to inform them that the House was ready to adjourn. Whereupon, -after waiting some time to receive any answer that might be sent -thereto, without receiving any-- - -The SPEAKER adjourned the House until the first Monday in December next. - - - - - -INDEX TO VOL. I - - -_Acts of Congress._--Propriety of limiting the period of their operation, - note, 82; - safe-keeping of, 129. - -_Adams, John_, elected Vice President in 1789, 10; - voted for as President in 1789, 10; - in 1793, 385; - addresses the Senate on taking the chair as Vice President, 11; - Vice President U. S., 441, 520. - -_Address, Inaugural._--Washington, 12. - -_Address of the Friends in Pennsylvania, &c._, urging the discontinuance - of the Slave Trade, 201. - -_Address of House to President._--In committee, on answer to the - President's Address; - clause respecting the Western expedition against the Indians under - consideration, 256; - alarm occasioned by the Greek treaty, 256; - secret articles thus early, 256; - sufferings of the people of Georgia, 286. - - Encouraging navigation considered, 257; - too early for the House to commit itself, 257; - mode of expression might conduce to the exclusion of foreign bottoms, 257; - expressions of the President, 257; - amendment proposed, 257; - exclusion ruinous to Southern States, 257; - the words of the report and amendment, 257; - not be hasty to declare all exports shall be in American bottoms, 257; - tonnage duties paid in Georgia, 257; - a substitute proposed, 258; - no reason to think the House will be committed by adopting the Address, 258; - two modes of answering the Address, 258; - amendment lost, 258. - - _Answer to the Presidents Speech_, debated, 532; - _note_, 532; - the House should not bow so much to the President as to approve of his - proceedings without knowing what they were, 532; - he says his policy in regard to foreign nations is founded in justice; we - intend to convey a general sentiment of approbation, 532; - the amendment proposes substantial approbation, 532; - the distinction is trifling, 532; - the mission of Mr. Jay should not be approved till we know his instructions, - 532; - better withdraw the motion than to bring it forward at such an expense of - temper, 533; - motion withdrawn, 533; - amendment moved relating to self-created societies, 533; - an excitable expression, 533; - self-created societies of the country, 533; - as improper to pass a vote of censure as one of approbation, 534; - the conduct of these people had tended to blow the insurrection, 534; - objected that these societies will acquire importance by a vote of censure, - 534; - amendment of no weight, 535; - leave the societies to their own conscience, 535; - this declaration from the House will tend to discourage Democratic - Societies, 535; - persons most violent against the excise laws had been equally so against the - insurgents, 535; - the President did not want them to intermeddle with the societies, 536; - the societies had produced Western insurrection, 536; - the effects of the societies, 536; - the societies composed of patriots, 537; - amendment can answer no purpose but that of disturbing the public peace, - 538; - the evils arose from the excise laws, not from Democratic Societies, 538; - the Democratic Societies in a great measure originated the late - disturbances, 539; - misinformation existed, 540; - amendment lost, 540. - - _Answer to President's Message to 1st Session of 4th Congress_, - considered in the Senate, 594; - nothing should be contained in it such as to force the Senate to precipitate - decisions, 594; - _note_, 594; - two clauses objectionable; our situation is not in every way auspicious, - 594; - nothing reasonably objectionable, 594; - some members could not vote for the Address without palpable inconsistency, - 595; - every article of the Treaty objectionable, 595; - the term "firm" applied to the Executive improper, 595; - the ratification of the Treaty in all its aspects is advisable, 595; - the objections considered, 595; - the clauses record a fact, 596; - further consideration of the objections, 596. - - _Answer to President's Speech, 1st Session of 4th Congress_, considered - in the House, 605; - practice of addresses disapproved, 605; - practice coeval with the constitution, 605; - moved to strike out certain words, 606; - clause goes too far, 606; - the confidence of a part of the people was diminished, 607; - motion denies confidence of the House and the public in the President, 607; - such a thing was once supposed impossible, 607; - what are the facts? 607; - defence of the President, 608; - recommitted, 608. - -_African Slaves._--Motion to bring in a bill relative to their - importation, 84. - See _Duties on Imports and Slavery_. - -_Algerine War_, report of the committee on, 475; - resolution to build four ships of forty-four, and two of twenty guns - considered, 475; - cannot be done in a year, 475; - two points to be considered--do the Algerines act from their own impulse in - this matter? if so, they can be bought, 475; - if excited by Britain, they cannot be bought, 475; - there is danger of a British war from fitting out the ships, 475; - the combined powers would regard their equipment as an opportunity to pick a - quarrel, 475; - the ships would be too small to be important in Europe, 475; - British would attempt to search them, hence a quarrel, 475; - bribery alone can purchase security from the Algerines, 476; - not a match for the Algerines, 476; - harbors for American ships in Europe, 476; - views on the subject, 476; - no security if we buy a peace, 477; - an armament urged, 477; - Britain is the cause, Algiers the instrument, 477; - this expedient unlikely to answer the purpose, 477; - competency of the ships examined, 478; - the charge against Britain unfounded, 478; - this country not in a state for war, 478; - _note_, 478; - six vessels sufficient, 479; - the bill regarded as affording protection to commerce against the Algerines, - and as the foundation of a permanent Naval Establishment, 480; - various objections urged to this view, 480; - the question is simply whether our commerce requires protection against the - Algerines, and whether this is the best course to protect it, 482; - these points considered, 482; - objections to the bill reviewed, 482; - argument against a Naval Establishment considered, 482; - passage of the bill, 482. - -_Allegiance, Foreign_.--See remarks of Madison and Jackson, 97 and 98. - -_Amendments to the Constitution_.--Application of the Legislature of - Virginia for a convention to consider defects, and report amendments, 47; - debate, 47; - this application should remain on the files until proper number of - applicants come forward, 47; - any subject can be referred to a committee, 47; - the propriety of committing it doubtful, 47; - Congress has no deliberative power on this occasion, 48; - the application of a State should be respected and regarded, 48; - it should be entered at large on the files of the journal, 48; - so ordered, 48. - -_Proper mode of amending considered_, 133; - proposition to insert after the words "We the people," in the first - paragraph, a brief clause, 133; - not the proper mode of amending the constitution, 133; - it should be done by supplement, 133; - moved to amend by a resolution declaring, "That the following articles be - proposed as amendments," &c., 133; - form of less importance than substance, but there is a neatness and - propriety here in incorporating articles, 134; - method proposed by the resolution incompatible with the constitution, which - requires amendments to form a part of the constitution, 134; - all amendments should stand separate from the constitution--see precedents, - 134; - supplementary form most desirable, 134; - by incorporation the original instrument may be entirely gone, 135; - can the mode make any possible difference, 135; - how can amendments be incorporated, 135; - report of committee founded on recommendation of State conventions, 135; - the original constitution should remain inviolate, and not be patched from - time to time like Joseph's coat, 136; - _magna charta_ never altered by incorporation of amendments, 136; - arguments for incorporation considered, 136; - motion lost, 137; - see _note_, 137. - -_Freedom of conscience considered_, 137; - proposition to insert the words, "no religion shall be established by law, - nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed," 137; - the words liable to a wrong construction--have a tendency to abolish - religion altogether, 137; - amendment unnecessary--Congress no authority to make religious - establishments, 137; - many sects think they are not well secured, and the effect of amendment will - be conciliatory for the new government, 137; - some States had desired it, 137; - reason thereof, 137; - experience of Rhode Island, 137; - apprehensions of the people, 138; - result, 138. - -_Right of instruction considered._--On a motion to insert the words, "to - instruct their representatives," an amendment proposed, 138; - arguments against the right, 138; - its propriety in this country, 139; - if our constituents have a constitutional right to instruct, we are bound to - obey, 139; - the words are calculated to mislead by conveying the idea to the people that - they have a right to instruct, 139; - duty of a representative, 139; - dangerous tendency of the doctrine, 140; - what may be the consequence of binding a man to vote according to the will - of others in all cases, 140; - arguments in favor, 140; this amendment is of a doubtful nature, and will - have a tendency to prejudice - the whole system, 141; - if sovereignty resides with the whole people, they cannot, in detached - bodies, contravene an act established by the whole, 141; - the clause would not bind representatives, 141; - it will operate inconveniently to the more distant States, 141; - under its adoption, one member as good as many, 141; - no law of the House would be of force if a majority were instructed against - it, 141; subversive of the principles of - the constitution, 141; - must members violate the constitution if instructed, 142; - objections further considered, 142; - no instruction should have binding force, 143; - right of State Legislature to instruct the House opposed, 143; - absolute necessity of adopting the amendment, 143; - no right of obligation claimed for instructions heretofore, 144; - constitutions of several States recognize the right, 144; - motion lost, 144; - another motion, 144. - -_Amendments_ proposed in the Senate relative to the judiciary power of - the United States, 445; - do. passed in Senate, 446. - -AMES, FISHER, Representative from Massachusetts, 21, 175, 255, 315, - 388, 527, 637; - on duty on molasses, 30; - on duty on hemp and cordage, 37; - moves duty on barley and lime, 38; - remarks on tonnage duties, 48; - remarks on tonnage duties, 54; on the scale of duties on imports, 59, 62, - 65; - would make no bargain or compromise relative to duties on imports, 69; - further remarks, 70, 71; - opposes the motion to lay duty on African slaves, 74; - thinks a limitation of the impost bill injurious to public credit, 79; - further remarks, 80, 84; on the admission of Rhode Island, 101; - on the President's power to remove officers, 106; - on the organization of the Treasury Department, 110; - on the compensation of the Vice President, 122; - on the right of instructions, 143; - on the location of the seat of government, 158; - further remarks, 160; - on manner the Secretary of the Treasury shall make his report, 177; - on the discrimination between foreign and domestic debts, 195; - on discrimination of public creditors, 215; - moves to strike out "Potomac," and insert Germantown as seat of Government, - 249; - on excise officers, 271; - further, 272; - on the commitment of the bill for a Bank of the United States, 273; - do. speech on the bank, 278; - on report of Secretary at War, 317; - on the bill for the encouragement of the Cod Fisheries, 353; - on attendance of Secretary of War, 391, 392; - on discharging Committee on defeat of St. Clair, 393; - on petition of Warner Mifflin, 397; - on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 436; - on the commerce of the United States, 468; - on fighting the Algerines, 477; - in favor of taxing salt, 506; - urges duties on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, 507; - on the advance of money to France, 514; - on an increase of the army, 515; - on raising a force for protection of S. W. frontier, 517; - on the President's speech, 532; - on resolutions of thanks to General Wayne, 545; - on the renunciation of nobility for citizenship, 562; - on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 568, 569; - on the execution of the British treaty, 743. - -AMY DARDIN'S horse, claim for, 763; - _note_, 763. - -_Apportionment Bill, see_ Ratio of Representation; - veto of, 374; - action of the House on, 374. - -_Appropriations_.--Bill for the appropriations for 1792 considered, 330; - various amendments proposed, 330; - bill recommitted, 330. - - _The Right of Congress to withhold_ appropriations from existing - establishments considered, 625; - _note_, 625; - moved to strike out all appropriated for the officers of the mint, 625; - such motion cannot regularly be brought forward, 626; - the bill is conformed to the state of the public engagements, 626; - an investigation should be made on an independent footing, 626; - a discretionary power in the House to appropriate or not, 626; - when legal establishments are made, neither branch has a right to withhold - its assent to appropriations conformable to the public engagements, 626; - illustration, 626; - the House is not to pass an appropriation bill as a matter of course, 627; - amendment agreed to, 627; - in the House, moved to strike out all appropriated to the mint, 627; - motion to strike out an appropriation for the purpose of bringing the policy - of a law into discussion, is repugnant to legislative duties, 627; - doctrine of discretionary power not correct, 627; - no appropriation should obtain sanction unless the House were convinced of - the propriety of the law, 627; - otherwise the House becomes a mere office for registering edicts, 628; - House has no right to obstruct the operation of the laws while they exist, - 628; - otherwise, the House has a right to refuse an appropriation to pay a just - debt, 628; - a constitutional view, 628; - mode of getting rid of an establishment by refusing appropriations not the - constitutional one, 628; - expenditure of Washington's administration, _note_ 629. - -_The bill providing appropriations_ for military, &c. establishments - considered, 763; - debate on the value of rations and the amount appropriated, 764; - the army had been reduced, but not the expenses, 764; - various sums proposed for the gross amount for different objects, 765; - other items considered, 766; - _note_ 767. - -ARMSTRONG JAMES, votes for, as Vice President, in 1789, 10. - -ARMSTRONG JAMES, Representative from Pennsylvania, 455, 528. - -_Army, Memorial of Officers of_, 397. - -_Army, Reduction of_--Resolution for the appointment of a committee to - bring in a bill for the reduction of the United States Military - Establishment considered, 398; - reasons and necessity of the motion, 398; - expenses, charges, and increase of the War Department, 398; - _note_, 398; - the protection of the frontiers considered if the army is disbanded, 399; - amount of reduction suggested, 399; - expense of militia expeditions, 399; - improper time to disband the army when negotiations of peace are going on, - 399; - been warring with our finances to keep up an army, 400; - dangerous so suddenly to alter the system, 400; - strange statements of members considered, 400; - referred to Committee of the Whole, 401; - calculations examined, 401; - circumstances requiring a force, 401; - history of the frontier wars, 402; - superiority of regular troops over militia shown, 402; - case of Major Adair, 402; - successes of Clark and Sevier, 402; - improper to take militia to fight Indians, 403. - -Improper to adopt the motion under the present circumstances of the country, - 404; - former law gave President power to exercise his discretion, 404; - have circumstances so changed as to render it proper for the Legislature to - interfere? 404; - the great object of the additional armament is peace, 404; - cannot rely upon the backwoods riflemen to turn out as often as wanted, 404; - the President has practised economy in organizing the troops voted for, 404. - -The motion only goes to prevent the raising any more troops, it does not - disband a man, 405; - militia always more spirited soldiers, and fitter for fighting the Indians - than regulars, 405; - experience with militia, 405; - no peace can be obtained from the Indians unless dictated by British agents - in Canada, 406; - any immediate alteration of the system dangerous under present - circumstances, 406; - the spirit of the motion in regard to the prevention of standing armies is - good, 407; - the reduction of the military establishment will neither put an end to the - savage war, nor to the enormous expense, 407; - consider the state of the exposed parts of the Union, 407; - these people demand the protecting arm of Government, 408; - commenced wrong in warring with the Indians, 408; - if public officers have misapplied the public money, the constitution - pointed out a mode to punish them, 408; - the defence of the frontier is of superior concern to the redemption of the - public debt by savings to be made by a reduction of the army, 408; - a particular plan is set in operation, and it should be tried, 409; - confidential communications referred to, 409; - this protection of the frontiers is a test of the Government, 409; - this Indian war differs from any other, 410; - not sufficient information respecting the prospect of peace to warrant a - reduction of the army, 410; - any abuses in the war establishment are insignificant, 410; - regular troops grow experienced, and by a line of forts trade can be - cultivated with the Indians, 411; - the most important question before the House--on its decision are suspended - the hopes of the people for peace and their fears of a standing army, 411; - the principle of keeping up standing armies, though highly obnoxious to the - people, has not been equally so to the Government, 411; - effects of standing armies, 411; - much deliberation is not necessary to form an opinion of military - establishments, 411; - the arguments of the opponents lead to four points, 412; - these points considered, 412; - although a war establishment is objectionable, this system should not be - arrested at the moment of its efficiency, 414; - a standing army is impossible so long as this House holds the purse-strings, - 414; - motion lost, 415; - further considered, 416. - -_The Pay of Soldiers proposed_ to be increased from three to four dollars - per month, 459; - motion to add a fifth dollar, 459; - no proportion between the wages of ordinary labor and that of military - service, 459; - it was justly due, 460; - no reason for this increase of wages, 460; - better to increase the rations, 460; - six dollars had secured some of the most respectable kind of people in - Pennsylvania, 460; - further considerations offered, 461; - motions withdrawn, 461. - -_Bill to increase the Army_, lost, 511; - bill to increase the military force and to encourage recruiting, considered, - 515; - principle of the bill wrong, 515; - is it proper to intrust the President with a discretionary power to raise an - army of ten thousand men owing to the particular state of the country? 515; - if we have war, it is economy to be prepared beforehand, 515; - no danger to trust the President, 515; - the force can be discontinued at our pleasure, 515; - it would involve the country in useless expense, 515; - the interests of the country promoted by vesting the President with this - power, 515; - what would be the consequence if he cannot make preparation when he sees the - war approaching, 516; - no such immediate prospect of war as could induce the House to violate the - constitution, 516; - under the constitution one branch of the government raises an army, and the - other conducts it, 516; - it encroaches upon a salutary principle of the constitution, 516; - bill rejected, 516. - -_Amendments of the Senate_, fixing the military establishment considered, - 759; - number of troops sufficient without this amendment, 759; - amendment to keep a larger number of troops, negatived, 759; - moved to retain the Major General, 759; - question debated, 760; - lost, 760. - -_Arts useful_, to promote progress of, 259. - -ASHE JOHN BAPTIST, Representative from North Carolina, 239, 259, 317. - -_Assumption of State Debts.--See_ Treasury, Report of Secretary of. - - -B - -BAILEY THEODORE, Representative from New York, 455,527, 604. - -BAIRD DAVID, Representative from Pennsylvania, 604. - -BALDWIN ABRAHAM, Representative from Georgia, 42, 175, 255, 317, 388, - 455, 527, 604; - on the practicability of collecting duties, 63; - on organization of Treasury Department, 93; - on the preparation of estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury, 113; - on the compensation of the President, 116; - further remarks, 119; - on power of Congress to interfere with slavery, 209; - presides in Committee of the Whole, 216, 220, 221, 228; - on memorial of officers of Navy, 240; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 269; - on ratio of representation, 322; - on the meeting of the Electoral College, 333; - on the preparations for the Algerine war, 476; - on admission of the delegate south of the Ohio, 530; - on a salary for members of Congress, 636; - on a stenographer for the House, 631; - on Post-roads, 637; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 659; - on the admission of Tennessee, 756. - -_Bank of the United States._--On the passage of a bill from the Senate to - incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States, 272; - recommittal moved, 272; - various objections to the bill, 272; - no argument in favor of a bank can be deduced from Great Britain, 272; - no necessity for a bank, 273; - plan unconstitutional, 273; - Government has power to borrow money and therefore had a right to create - capital to facilitate it, 273; - its operation benefits all parts of the Union, 273; - bill should be recommitted as too important to pass without discussion, 273; - other objections urged, 273; - clause of constitution respecting monopolies refers to commercial - monopolies, 273; - no sufficient reason for recommitment, 273; - fault of members if they have not offered their objections, 274; - motion for recommitment lost, 274; - put on its final passage, 274; - advantages and disadvantages of banks, 274; - is the power of establishing an incorporated bank vested by the constitution - in the Legislature of the United States? considered at length, 275; - rules of interpretation, 275; - clauses upon which constitutional power is based, 275; - general welfare clause, 275; - various answers to it, 275; - former bank no precedent, 275; - this is not a bill to borrow money, 276; - the clause, "All laws necessary and proper," &c., does not give unlimited - discretion to Congress, 276; - the Government is of limited and enumerated powers, 276; - consequences of considering that the power to borrow authorizes the creation - of means to lend, 276; - various objections urged, 277; - distinction between a power necessary and proper for the Government, and a - power necessary and proper for executing an enumerated power, 277; - contemporary expositions of the constitution, 277; - if the power is in the constitution, its immediate exercise is not - essential, 278; - motion to recommit lost, 278; - bill put on its passage, 278. - -Little doubt of the utility of banks, 278; - constitutional question examined, 279; - may Congress exercise any powers not expressly given in the constitution but - deducible by a reasonable construction of it, and will such construction - warrant the establishment of a bank? 279; - the doctrine of implied power has been a bugbear to many, 279; - danger of implied power does not arise from its assuming a new principle, - 279; - not exercising the powers we have may be as pernicious as usurping those we - have not, 279; - if some interpretation of the constitution may be indulged, by what rules is - it to be governed, 280; - Congress may do what is necessary to the end for which the constitution was - adopted, if not repugnant to natural rights or reserved powers, 280; - as the bank is founded on the free choice of those who use it, and highly - useful to the people and government, a liberal construction is natural and - safe, 280; - a presumption in favor of its conformity to the constitution, 280; - necessity of a bank to other Governments, 280; - if war should suddenly break out here, is Congress to provide for it? 280; - objected, that necessity is the tyrant's plea, 280; - how does Congress get the right to govern the Western Territory, 281; - is the establishment of a national bank a violent misinterpretation of the - constitution, 281; - are corporate powers incidental to those which Congress may exercise by the - constitution, 281; - Congress may exercise exclusive legislation in certain places--of course - establish a bank, 281; - the preamble to the constitution warrants the remark that a bank is not - repugnant to its spirit and essential objects, 281; - Congress may exercise all necessary powers, 282; - constitutionality never before doubted, 282; - the whole business of legislation is a practical construction of the powers - of the Legislature, 282; - immense difficulties to be surmounted on all important questions, 282; - whenever a power is delegated for express purposes, all the known and usual - means for the attainment of the objects are conceded, 282; - if banks are among the known and useful means to facilitate and effectuate - the ends of Government, the argument is irrefragable and conclusive to prove - the constitutionality of the bill, 283; - the utility of banks, 283; - answer to various objections, 284; - silence of the people is presumptive that they regard the measure as - constitutional, 284; - every power necessary to secure the great objects of the constitution must - necessarily follow, 284; - the power of removability had been construed, it was as - important as the present, 285; - numerous objections considered, 285; - the expediency of banks considered, 285. - - Latitude in construing the constitution to be reprobated, 285; - bill will interfere with State rights, 285; - arguments drawn from implication considered, 286; - that banks may exist without a charter reprobated, 286; - construction of powers considered, 286; - the powers relative to finance do not warrant the adoption of any powers - thought proper, 286; - power over Western Territory had reference to property already belonging to - the United States, 286; - necessity of proposed institution denied, 286; - general welfare clause, 286; - European banks, 286; - facility of borrowing will involve the Union in irretrievable debts, 287; - a geographical line divides friends and opponents of the measure, 287. - - Is Congress vested with power to grant privileges contained in the bill? - considered, 287; - what rights will this company enjoy in this new character that they did not - enjoy independent of it, 287; - the bank must be a legally artificial body composed of these rights, 288; - is not this simple power fairly to be drawn by necessary implication from - those vested by the constitution in the legislative authority? 288; - not express but necessarily deduced, 288; - peace is preserved by being always prepared for defence--this is a duty of - Congress, but it must borrow money to secure it, which a bank can aid, 288; - banks only are reliable for borrowing money, 289; - a national bank is the necessary means for this end, 289; - numerous powers have been exercised which were deduced by implication, 289; - if power was given to raise an army, the making provision for all the - necessary supplies and incidental charges was included, 290; - quotations from the Federalist, 290; - some objections to a bank considered, 291; - no preference shall be given to one part of the Union over another, not an - objection, 291; - this clause inserted for a particular purpose, 292; - expediency of a national bank, 292; - divisions of opinion in Philadelphia, 292; - instances of implied powers exercised, 292. - - Members vary widely in their opinion of the direction of the Government, - 292; - the Continental debt has travelled eastward of the Potomac, this law is to - raise the value of that paper, 292; - implication a serpent that may sting and poison the constitution, 293; - it destroys the principle of the Government at a blow, 293; - it is agreed that the power is not expressly granted but implied, yet it is - not agreed as to the particular power to which this is an incident, 293; - latitude of principles premised reprobated, 293; - the form not only points to the ends of Government but specifies the means, - 293; - if all laws proceed from expediency, what becomes of the constitution? 293; - the idea that no implication should be made against the law of nature, &c., - is hostile to the main principle of our Government, 293; - review of precedents in the former and present Congress which are relied on - to justify the measure, 294; - arguments of its advocates considered, 295; - there is no necessity, no occasion for a bank, 295; - propriety of its adoption not manifest, 296; - source of all the arguments in favor of the measure, 296; - arguments in favor of the measure, or the doctrine of implication - considered, 297; - authority to grant charters in general, 297; - preamble of the constitution, 297; - other clauses, 297; - general welfare clause, 297; - to regulate commerce, 298; - the terms "necessary," and "proper," 298; - exclusive jurisdiction considered, 298; - derived from its incidentality to the mere creation and existence of - government, considered, 298; - does it not interfere with rights of States? 299; - expediency of the measure considered, 299; - the right of exercising this authority problematical, 300; - death will be the penalty of counterfeiting, thus a life at stake on one - hand, and an improvident act on the other, 300; - two modes of administering the government, 300; - objections to the bill in detail, 300; - unconstitutionality considered, 300; - Blackstone's rules of interpretation, 301; - what is the meaning of the word "necessary," 301; - rules of Blackstone applied, 302; - this mode of interpretation compared with that of opponents of the bank, - 303; - the usage of Congress considered, 303; - sense of the Federal Convention considered, 304; - no such consequence as a monopoly can result from the bill, 305; - Congress cannot give authority to purchase land, considered, 305; - the sense of the Continental Convention is regarded differently by senators, - 305; - the restriction contended for would annihilate the most essential rights of - the citizens, 305; - origin of corporations, 305; - various objections illustrated, 305. - - Warmth and passion should be excluded from this question, 306; - the powers proposed to be given do not exist antecedent to the - incorporation, 306; - various arguments examined, 306, 307; - defects of the bill, 307; - previous question moved, 308; - bill passed, 308. - - Motion made in the Senate to exclude Bank officers and stockholders from - Congress, 445; - amendment proposed, 446; - amendment to the amendment passed, 446; - further amendments considered, 446. - -BARNWELL, ROBERT, Representative from South Carolina, 317, 390; - on ratio of representation, 322; - on the cod fisheries, 356; - on official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 421, 426. - -BASSET, RICHARD, Senator from Delaware, 9, 251, 313, 383; - appointed on Judiciary Committee, first Congress, 10; - on committee on rules in cases of conference, first Congress, 10; - on manner of electing chaplains, 10; - on rules of business, 10. - -BEATTY, JOHN, Representative from New Jersey, 455, 527. - -BECKLEY, JOHN, elected Clerk of the House, 21,315, 604. - -_Beef, Salt._--Duty on, opposed and rejected, 34. - -_Beer, ale and porter_, in bottles or casks, 33; - duty on, 34; - beer, duty on, 113. - -BENSON, EGBERT, Representative from New York, 23,175, 255, 317, 388; - on committee for reception of President, 27; - reports on reception of President to the House, 33; - reports from committee on administering the oath to the President, 45; - moves the organization of three executive departments, 85; - further remarks, 85; - on a Board of Treasury or Superintendent of Finance, 92; - on the Treasury Department, 109; - on the form of amending the constitution, 135; - on manner in which Secretary of Treasury shall make his report, 177; - on motion to discriminate among the public creditors, 217; - presides in Committee of the Whole, 229; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 268, 270; - on the stamp of American coins, 372. - -BENTON, LEMUEL, Representative from South Carolina, 519, 555. - -_Bills, Money._--Power to originate, 110; - do. enrolled--a standing committee ordered, 129. - -BINGHAM, WILLIAM, Senator from Pennsylvania, 591. - -BLAIR,----, chosen chaplain of the House, 316. - -BLAND, THEODORICK, Representative from Virginia, 21; - remarks on duties on imports, 28; - on duty on Madeira wine, 31; - opposes a duty on salt beef, 34; - regards duty on nails, &c., unequal, 38; - presents application of Virginia for amendment of constitution, 47; - remarks, 47; - advocates low duties on imports, 61; - urges appointment of committee of conference on first disagreement between - the two Houses, 67; - urges limitation of the impost bill, 78; - in the power of the President to remove officers, 87; - further remarks, 89; - believes the power of Congress to require oaths of State officers. - -BLOODWORTH, TIMOTHY, Representative from North Carolina, 255; - on excise bill, 265; - further remarks, 271; - Senator from Maryland, 591. - -BLOUNT, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 455, 527, 604; - the right to Indian lands within a State, 578; - on intruders on Indian lands, 585; - on the admission of Tennessee, 755, 757. - -BLOUNT, WILLIAM, Senator from Tennessee, 602. - -BOUDINOT, ELIAS, Representative from New Jersey, 21, 175, 255, 315, - 388, 455, 527; - informs the Senate of the readiness of the House to meet them and count the - electoral votes, 10; - urges scale of duties on imports proposed by Congress in 1783, 23; - engages in the debate, 26; - further speech, 27; - on duty on distilled spirits, 28; - do. on molasses, 28; - on duty on Madeira wine, 32; - on duty on hemp, 36; - favors duty on teas, 42; - reports on reception of President, 44; - opposes high duties, 44; - on the application to amend the constitution, 47; - reviews objections to high and low duties in regard to collection, 63; - on no limit to the impost bill, 78; - further remarks, 83; - moves organization of executive department, 85; - further remarks, 85; - on the power of the President to remove officers, 88; - whether the treasury shall be composed of one or many officers, 93; - on the duties of Secretary of the Treasury, 110; - on providing house and furniture for the President, 117; - further remarks, 119; - on pay of Vice President, 122; - presides in Committee of Whole, 126; - on amount of pay of members, 132; - further remarks, 133; - presides in Committee of the Whole, 145; - moves Potomac, Susquehanna, or Delaware, instead of east bank of Susquehanna - for seat of Government, 162; - on importance of the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 182; - on the assumption of the State debts, 194; - further remarks, 197; - on the constitutional right of an attempt to depress the slave trade, 203; - remarks on the motion to discriminate among public creditors, 207; - further remarks, 211; - on Pennsylvania memorial, 235; - moves to strike out "Potomac," and insert "Delaware" for seat of government, - 249; - offers resolution for a land office, 260, 261; - on the commitment of the bill for a Bank of the United States, 274; - speech on the bank, 287; - on report of Secretary of War, 317; - on the ratio of representation, 320; - further remarks, 324: - on the petition of Catherine Greene, 336; - against attendance of Secretary of War, 391; - on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 394; - on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 430; - on the pay of soldiers, 460; - on the flag of the Union, 461; - on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 463; - do. on the relief of do., 474; - on the embargo, 480; - on the legality of the sequestration of British debts, 484; - on non-intercourse with Great Britain, 495; - on admitting the delegate south of the Ohio, 529; - further do., 531; on the coinage of cents, 546; - on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 547, 549; - do. on the Pennsylvania insurgents, 552; - on amending the naturalization laws, 555; - on the requirements of titled foreigners for citizenship, 561; - on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 567; - on the reduction of salaries, 572; - on the right to Indian lands within a State, 578, 580. - -BOURNE, SYLVANUS, appointed by the Senate to notify John Adams of his -election as Vice-President, 10. - -BOURNE, BENJAMIN, Representative from Rhode Island, 260, 315, 388, - 457, 528; - on amending the naturalization laws, 559; - on post roads, 637; - on a salary for members of Congress, 637; - on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 666; - on the military and naval appropriation, 764. - -BOURNE, SHEARJASHUB, Representative from Massachusetts, 315, 388, - 455, 528; - on the Cod Fisheries, 363. - -BRADBURY, THEOPHILUS, Representative from Massachusetts, 604. - -BRADFORD, WILLIAM, Senator from Rhode Island, 445, 520, 591. - -BRADLEY, STEPHEN R., Senator from Vermont, 313, 380, 444, 523. - -BRENT.--On the rights of the House relative to treaties, 666. - -_Bribery_.--Case of Robert Randall considered, 609; - charges, 609, 610; - arrest of Randall and Charles Whitney, 611; - time given to prepare for defence, 611; - debate thereon, 611; - further statement of the case, 612; - charges against Randall and against Whitney, 613; - petition of Randall for counsel considered, 614; - report on further proceedings, 614; - considered, 615; - information against accused, 617; - counsel of Randall, 618; - examination of members, 619, 620; - resolutions on the case, 621, 622; - case of Whitney, 622; - debate thereon, 623; - Whitney discharged, 624. - -BROWN, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 175, 255, 315; - on Quaker memorial, 229. - -BROWN, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 380, 444, 520, 591. - -BRYAN, NATHAN, Representative from North Carolina, 604. - -BUCK, DANIEL, Representative from Vermont, 606. - -BURKE, EDANUS, Representative from South Carolina, 27, 175, 255; - on low price of staples in South Carolina, 37; - opposes duty on salt, 38; - on tonnage duties, 50; - favors effective tonnage duties, 54; - opposes any title for President, 66; - urges low salaries in consequence of embarrassed finances, 122; - brings in a bill for compensation of members and officers, 129; - on the right of instructions, 144; - on the admission of foreigners, 188; - one year too short a term for naturalization, 189, 190; - opposes the commitment of the Quaker memorial, 202; - Pennsylvania memorial unconstitutional, 208; - further remarks, 229; - on memorial of officers of navy, 240; - on a seat of Government, 243; - further remarks, 246; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 270. - -BURGES, DEMPSEY, Representative from North Carolina, 604. - -BURR, AARON, Senator from New York, 309, 441, 520, 591; - vote for, as Vice-President in 1793, 386; - on resolutions relative to presentation of French flag, 601. - -BUTLER, PIERCE, Senator from South Carolina, 15, 168, 251, 309, 380, - 442, 591; - on answer to the President's speech, 594; - on consideration of resolution relative to presentation of French flag, 598; - on resolution relative to presentation of French flag, 599. - - -C - -CABELL, SAMUEL J., Representative from Virginia, 604. - -CABOT, GEORGE, Senator from Massachusetts, 309, 380, 441, 520, 591. - -CADWALADER, LAMBERT, Representative from New Jersey, 22, 175, 255, - 455, 528; - on a committee to report a bill regulating oaths, 22. - -_Candles, Tallow_, duty on proposed, 34; - adopted, 35. - -CARNES, THOMAS P., Representative from Georgia, 455, 527; - on continental troops on frontiers, 518; - on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 550; - on the right to Indian lands within a State, 579; - on intruders on Indian lands, 587; - offers amendment to resolution relative to intruders on Indian lands, 589. - -CARROLL, CHARLES, Senator from Maryland, 10, 254, 303; - added to Judiciary Committee, 10; - on committee to prepare an answer to Washington's inaugural, 12; - reports on President's Message relative to the ratification of certain - treaties, 20; - urges decision relative to duty on molasses, 70, 71; - on the amendment to the constitution relative to freedom of conscience, 137; - on Fort Cumberland as a seat of Government, 159; - further remarks, 160, 164; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 269. - -CARROLL, DANIEL, Representative from Maryland, 22, 175. - -_Census of the Union_, debate on, 181; - in order to know the various interests of the United States, the description - of the several classes into which the community was divided should be - accurately known, 181; - census should comprise more than a mere enumeration of the inhabitants, 181; - the progress of each interest thus shown, 181; - motion that the marshal receive of every white male inhabitant over twenty-one - years of age five cents, and for every male slave of like age three cents, - as his compensation, 182; - an equitable tax, 182; - motion lost, 182; - bill read a third time, 184. - -_Charitable objects_, appropriations by Congress for, _see_ - French Refugees, 462. - -_Chaplains_, manner of electing, Senate committee on, 10; - resolution of the House on, 168. - -CHRISTIE, GABRIEL, Representative from Maryland, 437, 527, 604; - on the President's Speech, 537; - on the Randall bribery case, 610. - -_Circular_, addressed to absent member at the first session of Senate, 9. - -_Citizenship_, during absence, see contested election of William Smith, - 96. - -_City Hall_, New York, use of, tendered to Congress, 10; - accepted, 10. - -_Civil List for 1796, note, 629._ - -CLAIBORNE, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 457, 527, 608; - on the reduction of salaries, 571, 575. - -CLARK, ABRAHAM, Representative from New Jersey, 316, 388, 455; - on the ratio of representation, 326; - on election of President, 334; - on attendance of Secretary of War, 391; - on the reduction of the army, 405; - further remarks, 407; - on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 462; - on the relief of do., 474; - on the commerce of the United States, 472; - on the preparations for the Algerine War, 475; - on the embargo, 500; - urges postponement of indemnity resolutions, 504; - asks what taxes are paid by back settlers, 506; - opposes duties on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, 507. - -CLAXTON, THOMAS, elected assistant doorkeeper of House, 22, 315. - -CLINTON, GEORGE, votes for as Vice President in 1789, 10; - vote for as Vice President in 1793, 386. - -CLOPTON, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 604. - -CLYMER, GEORGE, Representative from Pennsylvania, 22, 175, 255; - engages in the discussion on laying duties on imports, 27; - advocates protection of unwrought steel, 35; - on state of paper mills in Pennsylvania, 41; - sustains the power of the President to remove certain officers, 89; - opposed to title for President, 68; - opposed to incorporating amendments in the body of the constitution, 134; - on the right of instruction, 139; - on the location of the seat of Government on the Susquehanna, 151. - -_Coal_, duty fixed, 42, 113. - -COBB, DAVID, Representative from Massachusetts, 455, 527. - -COCKE, WILLIAM, Senator from Tennessee, 602. - -_Cod Fisheries._--A bill for the encouragement of the bank and cod - fisheries, and for the regulation and government of the fishermen employed - therein, considered, 350; - motion to strike out first section, 350; - principle of the bill doubted, a bounty on occupations, 350; - no powers given to Congress for such a purpose, 350; - the revenue to be employed in this bounty is to be drawn from all the - sources of revenue, 350; - an authority given to any government to exercise such a principle would lead - to tyranny, 350; - bad policy to encourage an occupation that would diminish rather than - increase the aggregate wealth, 351; - the bill does not contain that kind of encouragement essential to national - defence, 351; - the part of the national defence derived from the fisheries would be too - costly, 351; - to show the propriety of the measure, it should be demonstrated that the - trade is in a state of decay, &c., 351; - that there is a system of defence involved, &c., 351. - - The fisheries are confined to Massachusetts, which is a part of the Union, - 351; - they are a nursery of hardy seamen, a never failing source of protection to - commerce, 351; - more annoyance to the enemy from privateers, in the war, than from any other - source, 351; - all desired by the bill is to avoid the burden of duties, 352; - the drawback on exported fish benefits the merchant, not the fishermen, 352; - this bill pays the same money to the fishermen, 352; - no bounty in the case, 352; - it is only a drawback on the salt used on the fish, 352; - the fishermen are now under no control, 352; - bounty given only to those who conform to regulations, 352; - constitution says no duty shall be laid on exports, 352; - on exporting dried fish, the exporter is entitled to draw back the duty paid - on the salt--this is the whole question, 352; - defects of drawback law shown, 352; - bill defended on three grounds, 353; - it will increase the national wealth, 353; - it affords naval protection in time of war, 353; - character of the fishermen, 353; - product of the fisheries, 354; - anticipated increase in exports, 354; - advantages now derived by the Government, 355; - mode of paying the bounty explained, 355; - not a dollar will be charged to the public, 355; - other points considered, 356; - justice only is asked, 356; - it is not a bounty, 356; - we ask that the drawback, in all instances, shall be equal to the money - received, 356; - the allowance proposed will not be greater than the drawback on exportation, - 356; - if it were a bounty, it would only be similar to the indulgence granted the - land and agricultural interests, 357; - how can Massachusetts contribute for protection to the Western frontier when - no contribution is made to support her commerce, which, without it, will be - ruined? 357; - diminution of revenue shown, in consequence of the failure of the fisheries, - 357. - - The money to be given will exceed the drawback, 358; - this surplus is a bounty, and Congress has no power to grant bounties, 358; - two or three provisions of the constitution to the point, 358; - what will follow the doctrine of bounties, 358; - guards in the constitution against the dangerous bias of interest which the - doctrine of bounties subverts, 358; - the objects of the bounty mark a dangerous innovation, 359; - it is better to increase the drawback, a plan comprehending the useful parts - of the bill without the objections, 359. - - Nothing of a bounty except the name in the bill, 360; - the object of the bill is to encourage fishermen and thereby increase their - numbers, and to govern them by certain laws by which they will be kept under - due restraint, 360; - these points considered, 360; - the bill proposes to commute the drawback on the exportation of fish to a - payment on the tonnage--thus no bounty, 361; - the bill contemplates no more than what the merchant is entitled to by - existing laws, 361; - the powers of the Government must, in various cases, extend to granting - bounties, 361. - - A material distinction here between an allowance as a mere commutation and - modification of a drawback, and an allowance in the nature of a real and - positive bounty, 362; - the term bounty improper here, and does not express the sense of the bill, - 362; - some think Congress may do any thing they may think conducive to the - "_general welfare_" 362; - this term examined at some length, 362; - consequences of the novel idea advanced, 363; - the power of Congress, if established to this latitude, would subvert the - Government, 363; - is it worthy the attention of the Government that the cod fisheries should - be preserved? 363; - privilege carefully secured in the treaty with Great Britain, 363; - products obtained in exchange for fish are dutiable, 364. - - Congress does not possess the power, 364; - arguments for the bounty examined at length, 365; - perhaps the State Legislature should give the bounty, 365; - framers of the constitution guarded against partial preferences extremely, - 366; - is it politic and wise to exert this power even if it be authorized by the - constitution? 366; - an examination of terms used, 368; - distinction between bounties and drawbacks, 368; - arguments drawn from the term "general welfare" dangerous, 368; - general welfare and particular welfare, 368; - the inherent rights of the Government, 369; - passage of the bill, 369. - -_Coffee_, duty on, 33. - -COFFIN, PELEG, Jr., Representative from Massachusetts, 456, 528. - -COIT, JOSHUA, Representative from Connecticut, 457, 527, 604; - on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 687; - on the execution of the British treaty, 731; - on the admission of Tennessee, 757. - -COLES, ISAAC, Representative from Virginia, 23, 175, 456, 604. - -_Commerce of United States._--Report of Secretary of State on the - privileges, and restrictions on the commerce of the United States in foreign - countries, considered, 458; - _note_ on, 458; - proceedings previous to the adoption of the constitution, 458; - duty to see if such measures could not be taken as would be promotive of - those objects for which the Government was in a great measure instituted, 458; - effects of such a movement, 458; - numerous considerations advanced, 459; - line to which the debate should be confined, 464; - Great Britain and France, the two powers aimed at in the restrictions - proposed, 464; - an accurate and impartial comparison of the commercial systems of the two - countries in reference to the United States; the test of the solidity of these - propositions, 464; - results of the comparison, 464. - - Should any thing be done at this time in the way of commercial regulations - towards vindicating and advancing our national interests? 465; - Navigation Act of Great Britain, 465; - to allow trade to regulate itself, is not to be admitted as a maxim - universally sound, 465; - history of American policy, 466; - trade between the United States and Great Britain, considered, 466. - - We should not regard the favoring of the French and British nation, but - study to do that which would tend to the promotion of our own commerce - and the interest of our own navigation, 467; - which would suffer most, the United States or Great Britain? 467; - three fourths of our revenue is derived from our commerce with Great - Britain, 467; - our intercourse with Great Britain, excepting some points, is as favorable - as we can expect, 468; - a judicious system of regulations would be of infinite advantage to the - maritime interest of this country, 468; - principles in regard to trade, 468; - the subject is divided into navigation and manufactures, 469; - navigation considered, 469; - benefits derived from the consumption of European manufactures, 470; - on the trade between America and Great Britain, 471; - fixed principles and regulations by which to promote our commerce, 472; - question considered in a political light, 472; - the question postponed, 473. - - _Promoting Commerce_ by the increase of American seamen; moved that a - committee be appointed to report bills for, 395; - injury and insult arising from having British seamen, 395; - cases of search and seizure stated, 396; - conduct of Great Britain, 396; - Government should take steps to secure abundance of American seamen, 396; - motion adopted, 396. - -_Committee._--Senate, 1st Congress; on judiciary, 10; - on rules in cases of conference, 10; - on manner of electing chaplains, 10; - on arrangements for receiving President, 10; - to wait on Vice President, 11; - on conducting the ceremonial of receiving the President, 11; - to prepare an answer to Washington's Inaugural, 12; - of House to report a bill regulating oaths, 22; - of House to receive President, 37; - to receive Vice President, 37; - on supplies ordered, 46; - appointed, 46; - on disposition of papers in the office of late Secretary of United States, - 46; - on the answer to Washington's Inaugural, 46; - on supplies; instructions to, 57; - of Conference with Senate on disagreement relative to title of President, - 69; - to draft bills organizing Executive Departments, 94; - to draft bills on pay of members, 126; - on the establishment of a land office, 127; - on enrolled bills, 129; - to bring in bills relative to a seat of Government, 164; - of Senate to draft an address to the President, 169; - of Senate to bring in a bill additional to the Judiciary Act, 170; - on unfinished business of last session, 170; - of House on unfinished business of the last session, 171; - to wait upon the President, 175; - to prepare an address to the President, 178; - of Senate to draft an answer to the President's address, third session, - first Congress, 253; - standing, appointed by the Speaker, 315; - on rules, 315; - to prepare an answer to the President's address, 316. - -_Compensation of the President, &c._--Report of a committee on the - compensation of President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives - considered, 116; - in what style is the President expected to live? 116; - is five thousand dollars in proportion to the services of the Vice - President? 116; - members should know the rate at which they are paid in order to regulate - their expenses, 116; - the pay of the President should be granted as one sum, 117; - under the constitution, he can receive no other emolument, 117; - the provision in the report for paying the expenses of enumerated articles, - house, furniture, clerks, horses, does not leave the President in the - situation contemplated by the constitution, 117; - furniture and plate should always be provided by Government, 117; - report perfectly constitutional; if one thing can be allowed, another can - be, 117; - the constitution intends nothing but a fixed compensation for his services, - 117; - compensation should be according to services, and the President allowed to - live as he pleased, 118; - there should be proper dignity attached to the office, 118; motion to strike - out enumerated articles, horses, &c., carried, 118; - motion to strike out twenty and insert thirty thousand dollars, 118; - do. divided, first carried, 118; various sums proposed, 119; - if we knew the style in which the President should live, amount of pay would - be easy to determine, 119; - experiment only can tell, 119; - $25,000 sufficient to test it, 119; various sums farther considered, 120; - $25,000 adopted, 120. - -_Compensation of Vice President_ considered, 120; - $5,000 per annum in quarterly payments reported, 120; - nothing in the constitution gives him a right to a salary, 120; - moved to strike out $5,000 in order to allow salary when he acts as - President, and daily pay for services in the Senate, 120; - $5,000 is out of proportion to $25,000, 120; - it should be a perpetual salary as he is expected to remain at the seat of - Government, and be ready in case of death of the President, 120; - a compensation is to be made only for services rendered, 120; - Lieutenant Governors of States, 120; - services required of Vice President, 121; - advantages of the position, 121; - constitution silent on the subject, 121; - therefore left to the Legislature to determine, 121; - pay according to services does not hold good in Executive and - Judiciary Departments, 121; - the post not a sinecure, 121; - no more entitled to an allowance than the other members of the - Legislature are, 122; - shall the Vice President receive a per diem or an annual salary? - the constitution should serve as the ground by which to determine, 122; - all motions lost and original proposition agreed to, 123. - - _Pay of Senators and Representatives_ considered, 123; - six dollars per day and for every twenty miles proposed, 123; - six per day for Senators and five for Representatives moved, 123; - a distinction made in the constitution, 123; - discrimination opposed, 123; - discrimination urged on the ground of different qualifications and mode of - election, 123; - difference not perceived in the constitution, 124; - discrimination evidently contemplated in the constitution, 124; - unless adopted, proper Senators may not be obtained, 124; - no difference in Legislative concerns, 124; - arguments in favor of discrimination considered, 124; - do. 125; - distinction marked in many points, 125; - a discrimination may eventually be a public injury, 126; - a measure injurious to the Government, 126; - motion lost, 126; - bill for compensation, &c., 129; - moved to strike out six dollars as pay of members, 129; - objects of the mover, 130; - six dollars too high, 130; - present course is contrary to all Parliamentary proceeding, 130; - motion to strike out lost, 131; - bill reported to the House, and moved to strike out six dollars, and insert - five, 131; - six too high, 131; - consider the principles upon which the President, Judges and members are to - be paid, 131; - necessary to secure an independent Legislature, 132; - five high enough, 132; - insinuations of improper and unworthy motives in the movers, 133; - motion lost, 133. - - Annual salary proposed of $1,000 for members of the House, 635; - present mode good--no alteration necessary, 635; - members be induced to greater despatch in business, 635; - public think the session unreasonably protracted, 635; - annual salary causes neglect of business, 635; - a salary, a bounty to neglect business, 635; - a measure affords no advantage, 636; - many suppose the bill to cover advance pay--yearly allowance not shorten - sessions, 636; - further consideration advanced, 636; - motion to strike out the word annual passed, 637; - motion to strike out greater allowance to the Speaker, 638; - debated at length, 638; - motion lost, 639. - -_Congress._--Day of meeting, 9; - _note_, 46; - proposition to adjourn first session, 16; - adjournment of first session, 20; - compensation of members, 116; - debate on, 116; - pay of members, 123; - debate on discrimination in pay of members of two Houses, 123; - compensation of members and officers, 129; - debate on amount of pay, 129; - first session, adjournment of, 167; - second session, day of meeting, 168; - members of, when term of office commenced, 171; - second session, 175; - first, third session, 251; - first, closed, 308; - second, first session, 309; - second, first session closed, 379; - second session commenced, 388; - third, first session, 455; - third, second session, 520; - adjournment, second session of third Congress, 591; - fourth, first session, 592. - -_Connecticut._--Vote for President, 10, 385. - -_Constitution._--Amendment of, proposed by Virginia, 47; - how treated by the House, 48; - debate on the mode of, 133; - on the freedom of conscience, 137; - right of instruction, 138; - debate on, 138; - vote on, 144; - all amendments, in one report, 144; - constitution, amendments of; _see Amendment_ of the constitution. - -CONTEE, BENJAMIN, Representative from Maryland, 89, 175. - -_Contested Elections._--Debate on the resolution that William Smith, - member of the House, had been seven years a resident of the United - States at the time of his election, 94; - statement of Mr. Smith, 94; - was Mr. Smith a citizen of South Carolina during his absence in Europe? 97; - if the laws of the State decided him to be, that should settle the question, - 97; - is the gentleman eligible to a seat in the House, or has he been seven years - in the United States? 97; - qualities of a citizen and an alien, 97; - to become a citizen, allegiance is first due to the whole nation, 98; - what was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of - their allegiance took place? 98; - views of Mr. Madison, 98; - opposite views of Mr. Jackson, 99; - vote admitting Mr. Smith, 99. - - _Ineligibility of Albert Gallatin_ to a seat in the Senate, considered, - 448; - on the petition of Conrad Earle, reported that it remains with Mr. G. to - prove his citizenship, 448; - facts stated, 448; - who shall open the prosecution and conclude the arguments? 449; - Mr. G. was an inhabitant of the United States before the peace of 1783, 449; - all previous laws respecting aliens were done away, 449; - he conceived himself a citizen from the time of his first qualifying, 449. - - Qualifications required in Virginia and Massachusetts, 449; - mischievous consequences of permitting such innovations, 449; - the doctrine of the old law still virtually in force, 449; - other objections considered, 450; - reply of Mr. Gallatin, 450, 451, 452; - vote of the Senate, 452. - -COOPER, WILLIAM, Representative from New York, 604. - -_Cotton_, its introduction into South Carolina contemplated, 37. - -COUNT DE GRASSE, Memorial of heirs of, 582. - -CRABB, JEREMIAH, Representative from Maryland, 624. - -_Creek Nation._--Secret article of treaty with, 173. - -_Crown on the State House_ at New Haven, 563. - - -D - -DALTON, TRISTRAM, Senator from Massachusetts, 10, 168, 251; - on committee for conducting reception of President, 11. - -DAWSON, WILLIAM J., Representative from North Carolina, 455, 527. - -DAYTON, JONATHAN, Representative from New Jersey, 316, 388, 455, 527, - 604; - in favor of the attendance of the Secretary of War, 391; - on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 395; - on reduction of the army, 400; - acknowledges thanks of the House, 440; - on the sequestration of British debts, 483; - against continuing the embargo, 500; - moves to refer indemnity resolution to committee on sequestration of British - debts, 503; - advocates his motion, 503; - in favor of the bill to increase the army, 515; - on admitting the delegate south of the Ohio, 529; - on administering the oath to the delegate south of the Ohio, 531; - on the President's speech, 535; - on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 547, 548; - on Pennsylvania insurgents, 552; - on amending naturalization laws, 555; - on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 568; - on the purchase of Indian lands, 583; - elected Speaker, 604; - do. speech, 604; - on establishing Indian trading-houses, 624; - on the pay of the Speaker, 638; - on the execution of the British Treaty, 748; - on the admission of Tennessee, 754, 755; - on the military and naval appropriation, 764, 765. - -DEARBORN, HENRY, Representative from Massachusetts, 455, 527, 664; - on thanks to General Wayne, 546; - on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 750, 751; - on the admission of Tennessee, 755. - -_Debate_, on duties and imports, 37, 41, 57, 58; - on permanent seat of government, 145; - on amendments of the Senate to House bill fixing seat of government, 165; - on call of the House, 176; - on manner in which Secretary of the Treasury shall make a report, 177; - on answer to President's speech, 178; - on admission of reporters, 180; - on census of United States, 181; - on report of Secretary of the Treasury, 182; - on the naturalization laws, 184; - on the assumption of State debts, 191; - on the reception of the address of the Friends urging the discontinuance of - the slave trade, 202; - publication of, 377; - on a military establishment, 390; - on the defeat of St. Clair, 391, 393; - on the reduction of the army, 398; - on official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 418; - on the pay of soldiers, 459; - on the commerce of the United States, 464; - on the war with Algiers, 475; - on sequestration of British debts, 483; - on non-intercourse with Great Britain, 493; - on the embargo, 499; - on indemnity for spoliations, 503; - on tobacco and sugar duties, 507, 599, 511; - on the delegate south of the Ohio, 529; - on answer to President's speech, 531; - on Pennsylvania insurgents, 547; - on naturalization bill, 555; - on reduction of salaries, 571; - on Thomas Pearson and others, 576; - on Indian lands in Georgia, 586; - on the address to the President, 605; - Robert Randall bribery case, 609; - on appropriations, 625; - on Treaty with Great Britain, 639; - on admission of Tennessee, 754. - -_Debt of the States_, _note_, 140; - assumption of, 191. - -_Delaware_, vote for President, 10, 385. - -_Delegates from Territories._--Report on the credentials of James White, - Representative of the territory south of the Ohio, 528; - unconstitutional to permit the delegate to debate and not to vote, 528; - the law says he shall be a member of Congress--one House is not Congress, - hence the delegate may vote in both Houses, 528; - constitution makes no provision for such a person, 528; - his proper title is to a seat in the Senate, 529; - the House can admit those whom it regards as lawfully entitled to a seat, - 529; - by whom was he to be paid? 529; - expedient to admit the delegate, 529; - the House has the right to consult or admit any one to debate, but not to - vote, 529; - an act of the whole legislature requisite for the introduction of a - delegate, 529; - an act of the legislature impracticable, 529; - he has a right to a seat founded on an original compact, 530; - amendment proposed, 530; - the constitution admits no such character, 530; - report of the committee, 530; - moved that the delegate be required to take an oath, 531; - the constitution requires only members and the clerk to take an oath, 531; - improper to demand an oath of a delegate as he cannot vote, 531; - motion lost, 531. - -DENT, GEORGE, Representative from Maryland, 455, 527, 604. - -_Departments_, executive, debate on, 85; - of interior, organization of, proposed as a home department, 85; - of State, organization of, proposed, 85; - resolved, 86; - of treasury, organization of proposed, 85; - of war, organization of, proposed, 85; - of the treasury, organization of, proposed, 90; - debate, 90; - three commissioners of treasury voted down, 94; - executive, resolution on, 94; - do. committee on, 94; - of State, on removal of the Secretary by the President, 102; - of war, 108; - do. bill ordered to be engrossed, 109; - of the treasury, debate on duties of the Secretary, 109; - home, 127; - proposition lost, 128; - see _Executive_ departments. - -DEXTER, SAMUEL, Jr., Representative from Massachusetts, 457, 528; - on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 463; - against continuing the embargo, 500; - opposes reference of the indemnity resolutions to committee on sequestration - of British debts, 505; - on admitting the delegate south of the Ohio, 529, 530; - on the President's speech, 532, 535, 538; - on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 550, 551, 553; - on amending naturalization laws, 556; - on the exclusion of titled foreigners from citizenship, 557. - -DICKINSON, PHILEMON, Senator from New Jersey, 251, 309, 380. - -_Discrimination_, in public creditors, _see Treasury_, report of -Secretary. - -_Distilled spirits_, debate on drawback, 43; - duty on, proposed, 28, 29; - duty on, 113; - _see Duties_ on imports. - -_Drawbacks_, _see Duties_ on imports. - -DUDLEY, GIFFORD, elected doorkeeper of House, 22, 315. - -_Duties ad valorem_, laid, 41, 43; - collection of, bill reported, 57; - on imports, bill laying the same considered, 15; - subject brought before the House by Mr. Madison, 22; - scale adopted in 1783, 23; - debate on, in committee, 23, 33, 44; - effect of high duties on smuggling, 44; - debate thereon, 69, 73; - debate on limiting the time of the bill, 77; - amendment proposed, 81; - withdrawn, 83; - another moved, 84; - bearing of the debate upon protection, _note_, 84. - -_Duties on Import_s.--Debate on, 22; - importance of the subject, 22; - deficiency of the Treasury, 22; - the propositions by Congress in 1783, suitable for a basis, 23; - heretofore approved by the States, 23; - tonnage duties added, 23; - necessity of the measure, 23; - motion to fill the blanks of rate of duty as proposed by Congress in 1783, - 23; - filling the blanks should be postponed until the business is more mature, - 23; - immediate filling not necessary, 23; - the proposition considered in a revenue light alone, 24; - system of the plan proposed, 24; - its simplicity, 24; - something more than a temporary measure should be adopted, 24; - list of articles on which duties should be levied proposed, 24; - a single system embracing the most material and productive articles is best - at present--a plan comprising all is a work of time and leisure, 25; - to establish a permanent regulation now is most satisfactory to the public, - 25; - five per cent. on all imports excepting a few articles enumerated for - specific duty proposed in 1783--the history of the ancient world shows - protection to domestic manufactures, 25; - the fostering hand of the General Government should extend to all - manufactures of national utility, 25; - any system of imports must be founded on mutual concession, 26; - the means of encouraging agriculture should be considered, 26; - of this we have the monopoly, 26; - commerce, labor and industry, should be free, with some exceptions--every - nation should have means of defence within itself, 26; - imposts the easiest system of revenue, 26; - but in what manner shall it be done? 26; - specific duties on enumerated articles desirable, 26; - a political necessity exists for encouraging manufactures, and raising a - revenue, 27; - what articles shall be taxed, what amount of money will each yield, and in - what manner shall it be collected? 27; - these questions should be the subjects of two bills, 27; - in laying duties where the quantum is unascertainable, they should be low - rather than high, 27. - -_Rum._--Fifteen cents per gallon proposed, 27; - fifteen too high, ten moved, 27; - committee not prepared to enter on the business in the accurate manner - proposed, 27; - encouragement to manufactures in their present feeble state would be a tax - on the public for the benefit of a few, 27; - what article shall be subject to specific, and what to _ad valorem_, - duties, and on what principle shall the discrimination be made? 28; - if the main object is revenue, consider when a duty is laid how far it is - likely to be collected, 28; - fifteen cents per gallon on rum may tempt smuggling, 28; - it is one third the cost, 28; - the highest sum can be collected, 28; - revenue is the present object, and rum is the most productive article, 28; - what shall be the duty on one article must be determined by the - circumstances of the article, 29; - yet fifteen cents on rum may lead to evasion of the law, 29; - fifteen cents adopted, 29; - _drawback_ on rum exported, of six cents, 49; - lead to frauds on the revenue, 43; - no drawback will be a great injury to the manufacture, 43; - drawbacks will not operate to the disadvantage of the revenue, 43; - if not allowed it will be a restraint on commerce, 43; - particularly unjust if not allowed on rum, 43; - this was an encouragement to commerce, and should not be combined in a bill - encouraging manufactures, 43; - drawbacks generally, 45; - duty on rum, 65; - motion to reduce lost, 65. - - _Bill repealing duties_ heretofore laid on distilled spirits imported - from abroad, and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits - distilled within the United States, considered, 262; - an excise law to be reprobated, 263; - unequal in its operation, 262, 263; - history of excises in England, 263; - compliment to importers on promptness in paying duties, 263; - bill hostile to the liberties of the people, 263; - present revenue and demands compared, 263; - tendency to promote smuggling, 263; - mode of raising additional revenue disliked, 263; - motion to strike out duties specified in order to insert duties on molasses, - 264; - of all excises that on ardent spirits least exceptionable, 264; - direct taxation preferable, 264; - no other mode can be adopted, 264; - other sources of revenue might be explored, 264; - smuggling be promoted, 264; - deficiency exists--money must be raised--direct taxation impracticable, 264; - operation of an excise in North Carolina, 265; - an equal and just mode of taxation, 265; - good sense of the people support it, 265; - no more proper subject for revenue, 265; - direct taxes opposed, 266; - difference from the English bill, 266; - excises constitutional, 266; - people of Southern States cheerfully acquiesce in the wisdom of Legislature, - 266; - probable revenue of the year, 267; - an amendment moved to prevent inspectors, &c., from interfering in - elections, &c., 270; - the amendment should be extended to every person, 270; - proposition important, 271; - bad policy to render the law odious by fixing a stigma on the officers to - execute it, 271; - propriety of the motion, 271; - motion does not go far enough, 271; - reasons for the amendment, 271; - objections to the amendment, 271; - amendment lost, 272; - bill passed, 272. - - _Molasses._--Shall we tax spirits or the article from which it comes, - 29; - better collect on the importation of molasses, 29; - eight cents is in proportion to the tax on rum, 29; - this is a raw material important to manufactures in Eastern States, a - necessary of life--the tax, a local burden--two cents high enough, 29; - a principle of action should be adopted, 29; - if molasses is taxed high because the duty on spirits is high, a necessary - of life is burdened, 29; - this rate of duty is unequal, 30; - it will bring sudden ruin on the manufacturers of domestic spirits, 30; - if a particular duty bears hard on one member of the Union, it is part only - of a system bearing equally upon all, 30; - is this duty ruinous to Massachusetts? 30; - let a drawback of this duty be paid on all rum exported, 30; - eight cents is more than a third of the cost of molasses, and higher than - the duty on rum, 31; - six cents is more equitable; this principle now fixed would carry them - through the whole, 31; - fixed at six cents, 31; - if a reduction is made on other articles, there should be one on molasses, - 69; - the duty is not rated in proportion to other articles; the reduction must - depend on the article itself, 69; - should so rate as to make the States bear their due proportion of the - aggregate, 69; - every article should stand on its own bottom, 70; - this duty is out of proportion, and too high to be collected, 70; - it is a tax on a raw material and on an article of consumption, 70; - the necessity of a drawback on country rum is incurred, 70; - without the molasses trade the fishery cannot be carried on, 70; - experience is against high duties on molasses, 70; - fish are given in exchange for French molasses in the colonies; if the - exportation of molasses is impeded so is that of fish, 71; - the arguments of the advocates of a reduced duty, 71; - six cents changed to five, 73. - - _Madeira Wine._--Thirty cents proposed, as it corresponds with the rate - per cent. on the value--a principle now admitted, 31; - fifty cents proposed, as the article is not a necessary of life, and it is - desirable to raise all the revenue from imports, 31; - fifty cents prohibitory, 31; - the duty should be according to the relative value of the article at the - time and place of importation, 32; - cost of wine estimated, 32; - thirty-three cents substituted, 32; - discrimination on all other wine, 32; - discrimination not proper at this time, 33. - - _Sugar_, put on same footing as molasses, 33. - - _Beer, ale, and porter._--This manufacture should be encouraged, 33; - nine cents moved, 33; - the duty should be so high as to give preference to American beer, 33; - a low tax will raise money enough, 33; - nine cents prohibitory, 33; - prohibition will increase the manufacture and reduce the price--encourage - raw material, 34; - eight cents fixed, 34. - - _Candles._--Moved to strike out, 34; - it is necessary to continue encouragements begun by the State Governments, - 34; - a small encouragement would place the article beyond competition, 35; - if there was much importation of the article, it should be taxed for the - sake of revenue, 35. - - _Steel, unwrought._--Any duty on, unwise and impolitic, 35; - more deserving of a bounty, 35; - a little encouragement would furnish abundance, 35; - encouragement of the object of selecting the article, 85; - the smallest tax on steel would be a burden upon agriculture, an interest - most deserving of protection, 35; - condition of South Carolina, 35; - local considerations must be got rid of, 35; - what operates to the benefit of one part in establishing useful institutions - will operate finally to the advantage of all, 36; - sixty-six cents a heavy duty on agriculture and mechanic arts, 36; - fixed at fifty-six, 36. - - _Hemp and Cordage._--Policy of taxing cordage doubtful, 36; - ship-building of national interest, 36; - duty on hemp moved also, 36; - if one is necessary, so is the other, 36; - soil of the country ill adapted to hemp, 36; - a duty on it would discourage navigation, trade and fisheries, 36; - policy of taxing either doubtful, 36; - Southern States calculated to raise hemp--protection to husbandry important - as to manufactures, 36; - distinction between taxing manufactures and raw material, 36; - no amount of duty could give encouragement, if present price failed to do - it, 36; - frontier lands excellent for its growth, 36; - the committee should do as much for the farmer as the artisan, 36; - American lands will produce it equal to any in the world, 37; - a small duty would turn public attention to it, 37; - agriculture should be encouraged, but not at the expense of ship-building, - 37; - forty cents moved, 37; - encouraging the settlement of western lands will encourage ship-building - more than a bounty on hemp, 37; - a low duty will encourage its growth in South Carolina and Georgia, 37; - if hemp left out, cordage should be also, 38; - a low duty at first, 38; - fifty cents fixed, 38; - immediate encouragement contended for, 54. - - _Nails, spikes, &c._--This is a tax on the improvement of estates, 38; - like a tax on hemp, would increase the price of ship-building, 38; - an unequal tax, 38; - in a little time the home supply would equal the demand, 38; - needs no legislative assistance, 38; - refusing the duty will do no material injury, 38; - one cent per pound fixed, 38. - - _Salt_, a necessary of life, 38; - present price high, 38; - much to be depended on as a source of revenue, 39; - this tax heavier on the poor than on the rich, 39; - no encouragement would be sufficient to establish its manufacture, 39; - this tax unpopular and unjust, 39; - it will cause much dissatisfaction with the new Government, 39; - dissatisfaction will be only partial, 40; - the tax not unequal, 40; - taxes, to be just, should affect all, as this will, 40; - the good sense and justice of the people to be trusted, 40; - to be considered on the principle of justice and policy, 40; - it falls on all alike, is part of a system, 40; - any distinction is in favor of the Southern division, 40; - if oppressive to the West, the equilibrium is restored by other articles in - the system of revenue, 40; - no law unjust and oppressive should be made, 41; - such the duty on salt will be considered, 41; - fixed at six cents, with a drawback on salted provisions, 41. - - _Teas_, a discriminating duty in favor of American bottoms proposed, - 41; - a large trade now sprung up with the East, 42; - policy of the measure doubtful, 42; - its object is not to add to the revenue, 42; - long voyages unfriendly to commerce, 42; - the only advantage is to raise the India commerce, 42; - large amounts of American produce were exported in this trade, 42; - it would afford protection against the large companies in Europe, 42; - duty fixed as proposed, 42. - - _Coal._--Coal came from Europe as ballast so cheap as to prevent the - working of the mines in Virginia, 42; - three cents fixed, 42. - - _Scale of duties_, motion to reduce as too high, 44; - the scale will be found not too high, 44; - certainly too high to be well collected, especially in Georgia, 44; - greater revenue can be obtained from a lower scale, 44; - high duties produce smuggling, 44; - high duties now will lead to smuggling, and oppress certain citizens and - States for the benefit of others, 57; - high duties raise a scruple respecting the allowance of a drawback, 58; - high duties improper, because they are impolitic, 59; - Southern States willing to consent to moderate duties, and give every - encouragement possible, but not consent to great oppression, 59; - are the duties too high or not? 59; - what are the objects of Government--revenue one of the first? 60; - if the revenue system falls with oppressive weight, it will shake the - foundations of the Government, 60; - what we may reasonably expect to collect is the point to be considered, 60; - the chain of ideas upon which the whole subject is suspended, 60; - all the money should be drawn from impost which can be, 60; - rate of the duties, 60; - if the scale is reduced, the amount of revenue will be insufficient, 61; - direct taxation and excises are the only other means of resource, 61; - experience of the old Congress and the increase of our importations show the - scale to be too high, 61; - the objects for which the money is needed are most important, 62; - direct taxes are the alternative of lowering the scale, 62; - every article stands as well as possible under the information possessed, - 62; - the arguments of the advocates of low duties considered, 62; - this system compared in amount with that of Great Britain, 63; - arguments of the advocates of high duties considered, 63; - a host of revenue officers required to collect high duties would leave - little for the treasury, 64; - America has vessels well adapted for smuggling, 64; - effects of high duties on the mercantile interest, 64; - the impost will be well collected, 64; - whatever is just and right the people will judge of and comply with, 65; - if revenue is our primary object and other considerations secondary, we - should do nothing to operate against the principle, 65; - object of the committee is to raise revenue, 65. - - _African Slaves._--Duty on their importation moved, 73; - not to be hastily considered, 73; - impost bill on goods not proper to embrace this subject, 73; - the motion should comprehend the white slave as well as black imported from - the jails of Europe, 74; - no right to consider whether the importation is proper or not, as the - constitution gives the power, 74; - the principle of the bill is to raise revenue, the principle of the motion - is to correct a moral evil, 74; - the whole burden falls on two or three States, which bear their full - proportion of other taxes, 74; - imposing a duty on the importation may have the appearance of countenancing - it, 74; - if negroes are goods, they come within the provisions of the bill--if not, - the bill would be inconsistent, 74; - the motion should be brought forward as a distinct proposition, 74; - now is a proper time and place to consider the motion, 75; - the object of enumerating persons on paper with goods is to prevent the - practice of treating them as such by having them form part of cargoes of - goods, 75; - the tax not partial--in many instances such taxes are laid, 75; - arguments of the opponents considered, 75; - no difference whether left among enumerated or non-enumerated articles, 76; - would a five per cent, _ad valorem_ on goods apply to slaves unless so - stated, 76; - the States were now prevented from continuing their duty on the importation, - 76; - motion withdrawn, 76. - - _Limitation clause_ as to the time of continuing the impost bill moved, - 77; - propriety doubted, 77; - difficulty of fixing a suitable time, 77; - this is an experiment, and should be limited to three or five years, 77; - if the law is temporary, the people will not object to high duties, 77; - the object of the bill is the re-establishment of public credit, a motion - limiting it strikes at that credit, 77; - to pass a bill to draw revenue from the people without limitation of time - appeared dangerous, 77; - it was not only to restore credit, but encourage certain people to engage in - enterprises for which the public faith seemed to be pledged, 77; - if made perpetual, the House could not alter it unless the President or a - majority of the Senate approved, 78; - the House is constitutionally the originator of money bills, 78; - impossible to provide for the objects of the bill if it is limited to a few - years, 78; - a future Congress may repeal it, 78; - great care was necessary to preserve the principle of raising money - inviolate, 78; - there are great demands on the treasury, and no documents to show what they - are or what the revenue bill will produce, 79; - danger of making the bill perpetual is the loss of power to originate money - bills, and the extending the revenue above the demands of Government, 79; - a temporary limitation would inspire confidence, 79; - a perpetual one for interest alone would destroy all hope of payment of the - principal, and shock credit, 79; - nothing but a fixed, permanent, system can give security, 79; - public credit will not admit a temporary act, 80; - a measure of this kind necessary to reconcile members to different parts of - the bill, 80; - if the law is made perpetual, it will collect money in the public coffers - after the debt is paid, 80; - the Senate more likely than the House to misunderstand the public voice--the - latter should preserve power of redress, 81; - examination of reasons for making the law perpetual, 81; - no law should be passed without a limitation, 83; - no opportunity to amend errors if the law is made perpetual, 83; - the system should be permanent if the law is not perpetual, 83; - no revenue law with a limitation can probably be found on the English - statute books, 83; - motion withdrawn, and another substituted fixing a day for the termination - of the act, unless otherwise provided, &c., 84; - latter part struck out, 84; motion passed, 84; - first day of June, 1796, fixed, 84. - - Duties as agreed in conference with the Senate, 113; - bill for laying additional duties considered, 506; - three cents additional on salt opposed as oppressive, 506; - it is better than a land tax, 506; - no tax could be so universally unpopular as this, 506; - rejected, 506; - other duties considered, 506; - one and a half cents additional laid on coal, 506. - - _Manufactured Tobacco and Refined Sugar_, duty on, - considered, 507; - these articles incapable of bearing a burden, 507; - of the nature of an excise, and the money can be raised either way, 507; - if the bill is thrown out, then farewell to firm and determined measures, - 507; - objections to an excise, 507; - the principle of excise is settled, 507; - reasons in favor of the duty, 507; - delay urged, 509; - money needed, 509; - a considerable deficiency, 509; - imports reduced by capture of American shipping, 509; - a general increased import would not effect the object, 509; - if peace continues, the revenue may be adequate--if war comes, it will be - deficient, 510; - better to postpone the subject, 510; - motion to reject the bill lost, 511; - amended so as to confine the duty to manufactured snuff, 511; - moved to strike out duty on refined sugars, 511; - now in its infancy, 512; - state of the trade--objections to the duty considered, 512; - motion to strike out lost, 512. - -_Duties on Tonnage._--Debate in Committee of the Whole, 48; - objects of tonnage duties, 48; - motion to reduce from thirty to twenty cents, 48; - the objects accomplished, 48; - Southern products cannot bear high duties, 48; - reasons for the reduction insufficient, 49; - if we have various, we have not opposite interests, 49; - no feeling of jealousy or rivalry exists, 49; - encouragement of navigation indispensably necessary, 49; - the price of freight will equalize itself, 49; - regulation in favor of American shipping absolutely necessary to restore - equality with foreigners, 50; - Southern States indignant at the power which foreigners have over their - commerce, 50; - they look forward to the day when their navigation will be secured to the - Eastern States, 50; - under present circumstances a heavy tonnage duty will be attended with - dangerous consequences at the South, 50; - the principle of preference being fixed, it only remains to ascertain the - proper degree, 50; - a moderate duty should be allowed now, 50; - but little difference in the capacity of the several States for - ship-building, 50; - this encouragement will diffuse and equalize its operation in every port, - 50; - proposition to lay a duty of fifty cents per ton on all vessels wholly or in - parts, owned by subjects of foreign powers, 53; - motion to reduce to forty until 1791; then increase it to seventy-five - cents, 53; - State duties are higher, and, if now reduced, will cause distress, 54; - if sufficient encouragement is given now, our navigation will probably - immediately flourish, 54; - doubtful policy now to reduce and then increase duty at the end of two - years, 54; - ship-building now needs the greatest encouragement, owing to its present low - state, 54; - different course pursued by the members from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, - 54; - people of the Southern States in debt, and have no shipping, and are unable - to sustain any new burdens, 55; - the difference in views does not arise from the geographical situation of - the country, 55; - the States expect Congress to protect their citizens in the property - acquired under State legislation, 55; - forty cents not too low, 54; - many years must elapse before we have sufficient tonnage to export our - commodities, 55; - the business is now in the hands of foreigners, and a duty will cause a rise - of freight by them, 55; - is fifty cents too high? 55; - a permanent regulation best, 55; - British shipping now crowds the ports of Virginia, although the tonnage duty - is twice as high, 56; - the question of discrimination has been decided, 56; - two years will not produce sufficient shipping--it will be improper to raise - the duty then, 56; - a certain tonnage duty best, 56; - motion to reduce, and then raise in two years, lost, 57; - regulations as adopted, 57; - _see Address_ of House to President, and page 257. - -_Duties_, protective, on unwrought steel advocated, 35. - -DUVALL, GEORGE, Representative from Maryland, 604. - - -E - -EARLE, SAMUEL, Representative from South Carolina, 604. - -EDWARDS, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 380, 441, 520. - -_Elections_, contested, 94; - case of Wm. Smith, 94; - do. _note___, 94. - -_Elections.--See Contested Elections._ - -_Electors of President._--Bill in relation to election of President - considered, 333; - longer time for the choice of Electors of President and Vice President, 333; - disagreeable consequences likely to follow a failure of choice, 333; - moved to strike out thirty days, 333; - if possible, the Electors should meet on the very day they are chosen, 333; - fourteen days would be a more proper time, 333; - it was hardly possible to know electors would agree in a choice--in such - cases a short time might answer, 333; - motion negatived, 333. - - Objections urged to the clause requiring Executives to certify the names of -Electors, 333; - no person can be called on to discharge any duty for the U. S. who does not - receive an appointment from the U. S., 333; - if Congress cannot call upon Executives, upon whom can they call? 334; - provision improper, 334; - on the contrary, it is neither an undue assumption nor degrading to the - Executives, 334; - motion to strike out lost, 334. - -ELLSWORTH, OLIVER, Senator from Connecticut, 9, 168, 251, 313, 380, - 441, 520, 591; - ordered to inform the House of a quorum in the Senate, &c., 9; - appointed on Committee on Rules, in case of conference, first Congress--on - electing Chaplain, 10; - appointed on Judiciary Committee, first Congress, 10; - on committee on titles of President and Vice President, 13; - delivered message from the Senate to the House, 22; - report upon the commencement of the term of office of President, &c., 171; - on answer to President's speech, 596; - on consideration of resolutions relative to presentation of French flag, - 598; - on resolutions relative to presentation of French flag, 599, 600. - -ELMER, JONATHAN, Senator from New Jersey, 9, 151, 170. - -_Embargo._--_See Great Britain_, retaliatory measures upon. - -_Emigration_, Proclamation of Spanish Governor of Illinois Posts, 114; - encouragement of, 114. - -_Estimates of Money_ necessary for 1794, 480. - -_Excise Laws_, Debate, 263. - See "_Duties on Imports_" under head of _Distilled Spirits_; - memorial on the, 328. - -_Excise.--See Duties_ on Imports, manufactured tobacco, 507. - -_Executive Departments._--Resolution respecting, 85; - debate thereon, 85; how many departments shall be established? 85; - three moved, 85; - founded upon the constitutional division of these powers, 85; - Home Department should be added, 85; - previous motion withdrawn, 85; - new motion to establish a Department of Foreign Affairs, one of the - Treasury, one of War, 86; - Department of Foreign Affairs agreed to, 86. - -_Mode of appointing the officer_, 86; - motion to strike out "by the President with the advice of the Senate," as - unnecessary, 86; - no serious reason against their insertion, 86; - the power of appointing is the gift of the Legislature, as the Secretary is - an inferior officer, 86; - the words only repeat those in the constitution, 86; words struck out by a - vote, 86. - -_Power of Removal_ in the President doubted, 86; - impeachment the only mode, 86; - what the consequences of such an interpretation, 86; - absolutely necessary the President should have the power of removal, 87; - if an officer can be removed only by impeachment, he holds his office during - good behavior, 87; - it does not consist with the nature of things that impeachment should be the - only mode of removal, 87; - the power given to the Senate respecting appointments would be almost - nugatory if the President had the power of removal, 87; - if the House had the power of removal by the constitution, they could not - give it out of their hands, 87; - not a proper construction of the constitution to say impeachment is the only - mode of removal, 87; - a legislative construction of this part of the constitution necessary, 88; - in all cases the party who appointed should judge of the removal, unless - otherwise excepted, 88; - a liberal construction should be given to the constitution, 88; - the President should be made as responsible as possible for the conduct of - his officers, 88; - how the constitution provides for the appointment of public officers, 89; - the power which appointed had the right of removal--shall it be given to the - President alone? 89; - the power of removal exists somewhere, and where? 89; - it is an executive power, and belongs to the President, 89; - the power declared to be in the President by a large majority, 90. - - _Department of Foreign Affairs_, in Committee of the Whole on the bill - to establish a, 102; - on the words, "To be removable from office by the President of the United - States," 102; - debate, 102; - the power of appointing and dismissing united in their natures, 102; - motion to strike out the words, 102; - the declaration should not be made even if the President has the power, 102; - no right to deprive the Senate of their constitutional prerogative, 102; - we are declaring a power in the President which may be greatly abused, 103; - the constitution the only guide; as it is silent, Congress should say - nothing about it, 103; - the nature of things; the express objects of the constitution require this - power in the President as the most suitable person, and it must be conferred - upon him by the constitution as the executive officer of the Government, 104; - safer in the hands of the President than elsewhere, 104; - if this power is not in the President, it is not vested anywhere, 105; - this construction preserves to the department the full exercise of its - powers, 105; - the precedent of the individual States, 106; - may arrive at something near certainty by attending to the leading - principles of the constitution, 106; - examination of the constitution, 107; - motion to strike out decided in the negative, 108; - passage of the bill, 108; - same clause attached to the bill organizing Department of War, 108. - - _Treasury Department._--Debate, 90; - shall this important department be in the hands of a single officer or in a - Board of Commissioners? 90; - duties to be assigned to the Secretary, 90; - a Board of Treasury would conduct the business of finance with greater - security and satisfaction than a single officer, 92; - experience shows a Board of Treasury is the worst of all institutions, 92; - experience with a single individual, 92; - not so much system, energy, or responsibility in a Board as in a single - officer, 93; - with, a single officer there is safety, if the various business of the - department is divided and modified, 93; - with a Board more power is given to each individual than is proposed to give - to a Secretary, 93; - shall the department be under one or more officers is the question; - what does experience show? 93; - motion in favor of a Board lost, 94. - - The words in bill to "digest and report plans for the improvement and - management of the revenue and the support of public credit," objected to, 109; - Debate thereon, 109; - to require the Secretary to make out and prepare estimates is sufficient-- - any thing farther is a dangerous innovation upon the constitutional privilege - of the House, 109; - to report plans will abridge the privileges of the House, 109; - the bill will be nugatory without this clause, 109; - it cannot infringe the privileges of the House, 109; - from the nature of his office, the Secretary will be better acquainted than - any other person, 110; - the constitution expressly delegates to us - the business of revenue--if we blindly follow an unskilful minister, our - constituents have no security, 110; - the power of originating money bills here is a sacred deposit, 110; - we may neither violate it nor divest ourselves of it, 110; - the circumstances of the country are such that the House needs the aid of - such an individual, 111; - too great jealousy for liberty hurtful, 111; - the clause is unsafe and inconsistent with the constitution, 111; - the object of the clause is good, viz: to get information, but the Secretary - should not possess a right to give it, 111; - what is this officer to be responsible for, to entitle him to such powers? - 112; - difficult to see where the danger lies, 112; - what is meant by responsibility? 112; - something of the kind is required in the bill, 112; - motion to strike out lost, 113. - - _Home Department_ moved, 127; - duties of it proposed, 127; - necessity of it not apparent, 127; - duties may be distributed to other departments, 127; - they have not been so distributed, 127; - foreign to the other officers, 128; - economy forbids it, 128; - motion to establish lost, 128. - - _Reception of a Letter from the Head of Department._--Motion to refer - a message of the President laying before Congress a copy of a letter from the - Secretary of War, &c., 566; - objected to, as showing too much deference to heads of departments, 566; - the President had a right to send the communication and the subject of - utmost importance, 567; - it is an executive comment on a Legislative proceeding, 567; - a defence of a measure adopted by the Senate condemned by implication - another of the House, 567; - no good reason to reject information because we had not asked for it, 567; - reference to the constitution, 567; - such jealousy needless, 567; - objections unfounded, 567; - letter of Secretary extremely improper and ill-judged, 567; - former practice, 568; - passage from the letter, 568; - the idea of a dangerous precedent at hand, 568; - report unworthy of the notice of the House, 569; - the amendment wrong in principle and practice, 569; - farther consideration of the subject, 570; - amendment negatived, 571. - - -F - -FEW, WILLIAM, Senator from Georgia, 9, 168, 251, 309, 380; - on committee of arrangements for reception of President, 10; - appointed on Judiciary Committee, 1st Congress, 10. - -FINDLAY, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 317, 389, 455, - 532, 606; - on the ratio of representation, 324; - on the petition of Catharine Greene, 336; - on discharging committee in case of St. Clair, 395; - on the reduction of the army, 408; - further remarks, 414; - on the official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 424; - objects to additional duty on salt, 506; - on intruders on Indian lands, 585; - on a salary for members of Congress, 636; - on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 668. - -FISHBOURN, BENJAMIN, nomination as naval officer at Savannah rejected - by the Senate, 17. - -FITCH, JOHN, petition for protection of his rights in applying steam - power to purposes of navigation, 73. - -FITZSIMONS, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 22, 175, 255, - 315, 388, 455, 527; - remarks on duties on imports--offers an amendment fixing certain duties on - certain articles, 24; - on duty on molasses, 29, 30, 31; - on duty on Madeira wine, 31; - on duty on teas, 32; - on sugar, 33; - on duty on beer, &c., 33; - do. on candles, 34; - advocates do. on unwrought steel, 35; - on duty on hemp, 36; - do. on nails, 38; - motion relative to duty on teas, 41; - proposes drawback on distilled spirits, 43; - proposes drawbacks on foreign goods exported, 43; - opposes low tonnage duties, 54; - explanation of his remarks relative to duty on molasses, 69; - on the time for continuing in force the impost bill, 77; - further remarks, 84; - on the finances, 128; - offers resolution for the appointment of commissioners - to select site for a seat of government, &c., 159; - presents the address of Friends in Pennsylvania, &c., against the African - slave trade, _note_, 201; - on Treasury returns, 263; - against attendance of Secretary of War, 391; - on the reduction of the army, 400; on official conduct of Secretary of - Treasury, 426; - on the pay of soldiers, 460; - on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 463; - on the commerce of the United States, 468; - on the preparations for the Algerine war, 478; - against the embargo laws, 499; - defends the tax on coal, 506; - on duty on sugar, 513; - on an increase of the army, 515; - amendment relative to the President's speech, 533, 537; - on intruders on Indian lands, 585. - -_French Flag._--Resolutions relating thereto, considered in the Senate, - 597; - moved to postpone consideration, 597; - it might convey a distrust of the sense of the Senate on the Republic, 598; - no difference of feeling in the Senate on the subject, but more time was - desirable, 598; - moved to strike out certain words, 598; - the parts of the President's communication, 598; - the subject was divided into two parts, 599; - other points considered, 599; - the Senate should express their own sentiments, 599; - former practice, 600; - other cases considered, 600; - no difference, except in a matter of form, 600; - further considerations, 601; - motion carried, 601; - presentation to the House, 615; - do. description of, 615. - -_Flag of the United States._--A bill from the Senate to alter the flag of - the United States, considered, 461; - if it is altered from thirteen to fifteen stripes because Vermont and -Kentucky have been added, it may be necessary to alter it for a hundred years, - 461; - very important not to offend the new States, 461; - the whole idea ridiculous, 461; - important to inform the rest of the world that two States were added, 461; - the alteration would cost every vessel in the Union sixty dollars, 462; - bill ordered to third reading, 462. - -FLOYD, WILLIAM, Representative from New York, 27, 175, 255. - -_Foreign Intercourse.--See Intercourse._ - -FORREST, URIAH, Representative from Maryland, 458; - on the commerce of the United States, 467. - -FOSTER, ABIEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 137, 175, 255, 604. - -FOSTER, DWIGHT, Representative from Massachusetts, 527, 604; - on the execution of the British treaty, 734. - -FOSTER, THEODORE, Senator from Rhode Island, 309, 380, 444, 520, 591. - -_France, Advance of Money to._--The report relative to an advance of - money requested by the Minister of the French Republic, considered, 514; - American citizens have claims for indemnification, why use the money to pay - to France before it is due, 514; - the cause of France and this country inseparably connected, 514; - they are our old allies, 514; - the loan in Europe was obtained for the defence of this country--it would be - imprudence to apply it to any other purpose, 514; - no ground for a plea of necessity for giving this money, 514; - no good reason for disposing of this money in this way, 514; - complaints have arisen of want of money in the Treasury since that has been - proposed, 517; bill - amended and passed, 517. - -_France._--Letter of French King, 313; - resolutions on courtesies of, 370. - -_Franking Privileges.--See Post Office Bill._ - -FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN, death announced to the House, 239; - eulogy on, in France, sent to Senate, 253. - -FRANKLIN, JESSE, Representative from North Carolina, 604. - -_Freedom of Conscience._--Amendment to the constitution, debate on, 137. - -FREEMAN, NATHANIEL, Jr., Representative from Mass., 604; - on the answer to the President's speech, 606. - -FRELINGHUYSEN, FREDERICK, Senator from New Jersey, 524, 591. - -_French Committee_ of Public Safety, address of, 616. - -_French Minister's_ address to the President on the presentation of the -Flag of the French Republic, 616. - -_French Refugees._--The petition of the committee appointed by the - Legislature of Maryland to draw and distribute the money appropriated by that - State to the French refugees, considered, 462; - three thousand fugitives from St. Domingo had been at once landed, 462; - what article of the constitution grants a right to Congress to expend on - benevolent objects the money of their constituents? 462; - a dangerous precedent would be established, 462; - generosity of the English Parliament in 1755, 462; - perhaps some other mode can be devised, 462; - as much authority for relieving these fugitives as for indemnifying citizens - for losses by British pirates, 462; - the two cases widely different, 463; - no difficulty in this matter, we are bound by the law of nature and of - nations to relieve the citizens of a Republic who were our allies, and - formerly our benefactors, 463; - look at our treatment of the Indian embassies, 463; - delay was desirable in this matter, 463; - its legality is doubtful, 463; - an appeal to our humanity is out of place, 463; - petition for the speedy action of Congress on the memorial, 474; - moved to pay $10,000 and negotiate the matter with the French Minister, 474; - House has a right to, 474; - passage of the motion warmly urged, 474; - not to be tied up by the constitution in such a case, 474; - it should be done as an act of charity, 475; - motion passed, 475. - -_Frontiers, Protection of._--Bill for further and more effectual - provision for the protection of the frontiers, considered, 341; - moved to strike out the section for raising three regiments of infantry and - a squadron of dragoons, 341; - the Indian war is unjust and unwise, 341; - the general treatment of the Indians unwise and impolitic, 341; - _note_, 341; - peace may be obtained at less expense than is necessary for war, 342; - the roving disposition of frontier settlers should be checked, 342; - no hope of success while Britain retains possession of the posts, 342; - should be content to defend the frontier and not invade, 342; - frontier militia better than regular troops, 342; - even to secure the objects in view no such increase in the military - establishment necessary, 343; - the troops to be employed should be raised at once, 343; - information on the report not implicitly reliable, 343; - frontier militia the best troops, 343; - the expense a serious matter at this time, 343; - is not the object of this movement to raise a standing regular military - force? 344; - no one knows for what reason the war has been carried on three years, 344; - it is said a sum might be appropriated to enable the executive to act as - circumstances require, but it is the duty of the House to appropriate money - for specific purposes, 344. - - We could have had the British posts if an embargo had been laid, 344; - no man who regards self-preservation can doubt the justice of the war, 344; - the murders and depredations of years call for redress, 344; - the whites have seldom committed depredations, 345; - peace is utterly unattainable by friendly efforts in the present state of - affairs, 345; - frequent attempts at treaties have been made, but in vain, 345; - Indians have rejected our offers and added insults, 345; - it is too late to inquire into the justice of the war, 345; - a force must be raised, and the question is what the force shall be, 346; - the number proposed is not extravagant if the number of the Indians is - considered, 346; - every reason to expect a most formidable opposition, 346; - the objection of increased expense is vain compared with an unsuccessful - campaign, 346; - the experience of Virginia and Kentucky offers no inducement to the - government to follow any other plan than the one proposed, 347; - militia quickly disband or become insubordinate from slight causes, 347; - Cornplanter's speech referred to, 347; - galleries cleared and speech confidentially read, 347; - _note_, Cornplanter's speech, 347; - subject originally referred to the Secretary of the Treasury, 348; - consequences of that reference, 348; - clauses of the bill, 348; - what reflection arises from a contemplation of this bill, 349; - motion to strike out, lost, 349; - bill passed, 350. - - _South-western Frontier_, to protect more effectually, bill considered, - 517; - when all other schemes have been voted down for raising a military force, it - appears in this form, 517; - regular troops useless in this service, 517; - this no part of a system, 517; - Indians are fifteen thousand strong, 517; - a body of militia only is wanted, 517; - this bill proposes a bounty for raising a particular corps, while the army - needs all to fill its deficiencies, 518; - Indians eight thousand strong, 518; posts do more mischief than service, - 518; - experience of years, 518; - amendment lost, 518. - -_Fugitives from justice._--Bill of Senate, 384, 385; - bill passed Senate, 416; - read in the House, &c., 417; - passed, 417; - _note_, 417. - - -G - -GALE, GEORGE, Representative from Maryland, 21, 175; - on duty on beer, &c., 33. - -GALLATIN, ALBERT, Senator from Pennsylvania, 386, 441; - proves citizenship, 448, 450, 452; - Representative from Pennsylvania, 604; - on the support of existing establishments, 626, 628; - on the call for papers relative to British treaty, 640; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 644; - on the execution of the British treaty, 735; - on the admission of Tennessee, 757, 759; - on the military and naval appropriation, 763, 764, 765, 766. - -_Georgia_, vote for President, 10, 385. - -_General Wayne_, resolutions of thanks to, considered, 542; - bad consequences might ensue from the practice of giving opinions of men, - 542; - abundance of precedents, 543; - it must be shown that it is improper in any case to pass such a vote, or - that this is an improper case, 543; - the resolution proper and unexceptionable, 544; - this point considered, 544; - it is simply a question of mere propriety, 545; - this propriety considered, 545; - resolutions adopted, 546. - -_General welfare_, clause examined and explained, 362. - -GERRY, ELBRIDGE, Representative from Massachusetts, 21, 175, 255, - 315, 388; - appointed on Committee of Supplies, 46; - on application to amend the constitution, 48; - doubts the power of Congress to require oaths of State officers, 51; - reports a bill for the collection of duties, 57; - on effects of high duties, 64; - asks further investigations relative to duty on molasses, 72; - urges limitation of the impost bill, 78; - further remarks, 80; - doubts the power of the President to remove heads of departments, 89; - on organization of Treasury Department, 90; - called to order, 91; - _note_ on, 91; - on Board of Treasury, 92; - on President's power of removal, 106; - on identity of reporting plans and originating money bills, 111; - on the finances, 128; - on the amount of pay of members of Congress, 131, 132; - on the form of amending the constitution, 135; - on the terms federalist and anti-federalist, 138; - on the right and obligation of instruction, 139, 142, 143; - urges delay in fixing seat of Government, 166; - on manner in which Secretary of the Treasury shall make his report, 177; - on the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 183; - on the humanity of the Quaker memorial, 204; - upon constitutionality of interference of Congress with slave trade, 211; - on a seat of Government, 245; - further remarks, 247; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 269; - on interference of excise officers in elections, 271; - on the commitment of the bill for a bank of the U.S., 273; - speech on the bank, 300; on the ratio of representation, 320; - further remarks, 327; - does a resignation produce a vacancy, 329; - offers a resolution on reports of Secretary of Treasury, 330; - on vacancy of Presidency, 335; - on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 356; - on the publication of the debates, 377; - on attendance of Secretary of War, 392; - on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 394, 395. - -GILBERT, EZEKIEL, Representative from New York, 455, 527, 604; - on a salary for members of Congress, 636. - -GILES, WILLIAM B. Representative from Virginia, 255, 315, 388, 455, - 528, 604; - on excise bill, 266; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 270; - speech on the Bank of the U.S., 296; - on the ratio of representation, 324; - is a resignation a constitutional vacancy, 328; - on vacancy of Presidency, 334; - on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 350; - on the stamp of American coin, 372; - on the apportionment bill, 374; - against attendance of Secretary of War, 391; - on attendance of Secretary of War, 392; - on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 393, 394; - on the official conduct of the Secretary of Treasury, 425; - further remarks, 427; - on the flag of the Union, 461; - on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 463; - on conducting the Algerine War, 477, 480; - examination of principles relative to the sequestration of British debts, - 486; - against the continuance of the embargo, 500; - on modifying it, 502; - urges postponement of indemnity resolutions, 505; - against increase of the army, 515; - on the advance of money to France, 516; - on the bill to raise a force for the protection of the frontier, 517; - on admitting the delegate south of the Ohio, 529; - on the President's speech, 533, 538; - reports a bill on soldier's pay, 541; - on the resolutions of thanks to Gen. Wayne, 542, 544; - on the investigation of losses by Pennsylvania insurgents, 553; - on an amendment to the Naturalization laws, 555; - on excluding titled foreigners from citizenship, 557, 558, 560, 563; - on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 567, 569; - on the reduction of salaries, 575; - on the frontier settlers, 587; - on the answer to the President's speech, 606; - on the attempt at bribery, by Robert Randall, 610; - on the resolution relative to bribery, 622; - on the support of existing establishments, 628; - on establishing Indian trading houses, 634; - on a salary for members of Congress, 635; - on the pay of the Speaker, 638, 639; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 653; - on the execution of the British treaty, 718; - on the army establishment, 760. - -GILLESPIE, JAMES, Representative from North Carolina, 459, 536; - on the right to Indian lands within a State, 576. - -GILLON, ALEXANDER, Representative from South Carolina, 498; - in favor of continuing the embargo, 501; - opposes the tax on salt, 506; - against duties on tobacco and sugar, 510; - on the advance of money to France, 514, 516; - on force to protect the S. W. frontier, 517; - deceased, 582. - -GILMAN, NICHOLAS, Representative from New Hampshire, 21, 175, 255, - 315, 388, 455, 527, 604; - on a committee to report a bill regulating oaths, 22. - -_Glass, window and other_, duty fixed, 41. - -GLENN, HENRY, Representative from New York, 455, 527. - -GOODHUE, BENJAMIN, Representative from Massachusetts, 21, 175, 255, - 315, 388, 455, 527, 604; - on duty on molasses, 29, 31; - on duty on salt beef, 34; - on manufacture of nails, &c., 38; - on duty on teas, 42; - on giving preference to American shipping, 50; - the object to raise revenue, 65; - opposes deliberation on subject of President's title, 67; - thinks duties too high for collection, excepting that on molasses, 69; - on connection of molasses trade with the fisheries, 71; - on concurrence of the Senate in appointments, 88; - on location of the seat of Government, 145; - further remarks, 148, 149, 160; - on ratio of representation, 322; - on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 351; - further remarks, 360; - on the flag of the Union, 461; - on the commerce of the United States, 472; - on the preparations for the Algerine war, 479; - moves to refer indemnity resolutions to Committee of the Whole, 503; - opposed to referring indemnity resolutions to committee on sequestration of - British debts, 503, 504; - urges delay in laying duties on tobacco and sugar, 509; - on a salary for members of Congress, 635; - on the pay of the Speaker, 638; - on the execution of the British treaty, 717. - -GOODRICH, CHAUNCEY, Representative from Connecticut, 604. - -GORDON, JAMES, Representative from New York, 315, 388, 455, 527. - -GRAYSON, WILLIAM, Representative from Virginia, 15. - -_Great Britain, Treaty with.--See Treaty, &c._ - - _Great Britain, Retaliatory Measures upon.--Sequestration of debts due_ - to, considered, 482; - considering the conduct of Great Britain sequestration, merely, is a great - lenity, 483; - no hope of the restitution of our property plundered on the seas--no - possibility of indemnification, 483; - no other method by which to enforce our claims, 483; - it would be warrantable to sequester without negotiation, 483; - with these resolutions, we may have peace--without them we shall have war, - 483; - not for the interest of the United States at this time, 484; - the proposition is to arrest, not confiscate debts due to British subjects, - 484; - law of nations considered, 484; - by this measure we make their motives for peace more weighty, and show our - amicable disposition, 484; - various points considered, 485; - two points involved--the right of one nation to sequester the property of - another in any possible case, and the policy of exercising this right at this - time, 486; - these points considered, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492. - - _Non-intercourse with Great Britain_, considered, 493; - moved to prohibit all commercial intercourse between citizens of the United - States and subjects of Great Britain, as respects articles of the growth or - manufacture of Great Britain, 493; - the line of conduct that should be pursued, 493; - this measure, a war measure, 493; - no representation of our injuries has been made, 494; - how far does cool, temperate reflection direct our conduct? 494; - constitutional considerations, 495; - answers to them, 495; - admitting the constitutionality and the right of the committee to originate - the measure, and the aggression of Great Britain; are these principles - sufficient to justify so harsh a measure?. 496; - resolutions adopted, 498. - - _Embargo, continuation of_, considered, 498; - reason for its adoption ceased, 499; - numerous inconveniences have arisen from the measure, 499; - British conduct now altered, 499; - should not be revoked until a change of system by the British Government - warrants it, 499; - if it continues, the value of our imports will rise one hundred per cent., - 500; - France will suffer considerably if it is continued, 500; - the other measures of the system have been laid aside and this should be, - 500; - although the reasons for it have not changed, it should be discontinued, as - it will now operate against ourselves and our allies, 500; - farmers suffer from the present restraints, 500; - letter from the merchants of Charleston, 500; - various considerations for its continuance, 501; - the reason for the embargo, 501; - reason for its continuance, 501; - resolution for its continuance lost, 502. - - _Indemnity for Spoliations_ considered, 503; - resolution that the United States indemnify her citizens for property - captured and confiscated by Great Britain, &c., 503; - moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee of the Whole, 503; - moved to amend by referring it to the committee to whom was referred the - resolution for the sequestration of British debts, 503; - objected that the subject was distinct and separate, 503; - urged that the two subjects ought not to be separated, 503; - wrong to bring up this motion alone, 503; - only course of indemnity was by sequestration, 503; - security and protection should be extended to all interests, and redress for - all injuries, 504; - if present negotiations fail, we owe it to our citizens to obtain redress, - 504; - the reference moved is not fair for various reasons, 504; - a tax should be laid to effect indemnity to our citizens, 504; - the subject should be laid aside for the present, 505; - there are strong reasons for indemnity, and also against connecting it with - sequestration, 505; - amendment agreed to, 505. - -GREEN, ASHBEL, chosen Chaplain, 388. - -GREENE, CATHARINE, Petition of widow, to obtain an indemnification - from United States against certain engagements of General Greene, undertaken - while commanding officer of U. S. army, 335; - recommendation of Secretary of Treasury, 335; - pressing necessity compelled General Greene to become surety, for which - indemnity is now claimed, 336; - the claim is just, 336; - a resolution moved, 336; - three alternatives were left to the committee, 336; - claim should be granted by special law as matter of right, 336; - circumstances connected with the evacuation of Charleston, 337; - how to distinguish between the articles necessary and the other goods, 337; - danger of establishing a bad precedent considered, 338; - the measure not proper or just, 338; - contract not beneficial to the United States, 338; - character and circumstances of General Greene, 339; - of the manner of conducting the affairs in South Carolina, 339; - points of contest before the committee, 340; - those points considered, 340; - further debate, 340; - resolution negatived, 340; - further resolution relative to the report of Secretary of the Treasury, 340; - resolutions on indemnity, 370; - do. passage, 375; - petition for indemnity against the demands of Harris & Blatchford - considered, 761; - report of committee, 761; - resolution referred to Committee on Claims, 762; - facts, 762. - -GREENUP, CHRISTOPHER, Representative from Kentucky, 455, 527, 609; - on the flag of the Union, 461; - on intruders on Indian lands, 585. - -GREGG, ANDREW, Representative from Pennsylvania, 317, 397, 455, 528, - 609; - on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 751. - -GRIFFIN, SAMUEL, Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 255, 315, - 388, 457, 527; - on committee for reception of President, 27. - -GRISWOLD, ROGER, Representative from Connecticut, 604; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 647; - on the execution of the British treaty, 735. - -GROUT, JONATHAN, Representative from Massachusetts, 46, 175, 255. - -GROVE, WILLIAM BARRY, Representative from North Carolina, 317, 393, - 458, 528, 604. - -GUNN, JAMES, Senator from Georgia, 10, 254, 313, 448, 524, 591. - - -H - -HAMPTON, WADE, Representative from South Carolina, 608. - -HANCOCK, GEORGE, Representative from Virginia, 457, 527, 604. - -HANCOCK, JOHN, votes for, as Vice President, in 1789, 10. - -HARPER, ROBERT G., Representative from South Carolina, 582, 604; - on difficulties with the Indians, 588; - on the answer to the President's speech, 607; - on the Randall bribery case, 611; - on a stenographer for the House, 631; - on establishing Indian trading-houses, 634; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 643; - on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 752. - -HARRISON, CARTER B., Representative from Virginia, 455, 528, 604. - -HARRISON, ROBERT H., votes for, as Vice President, 10. - -HARTLEY, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 21, 175, 260, 309, - 455, 527, 606; - speech on laying duties on imports, 25; - on duties of the Secretary of the Treasury, 111; - on the form of amending the constitution, 136; - on the right of instruction, 138; - on location of the seat of Government, 146; - further remarks, 148; - on the propriety of naturalization laws, 185; - urges residence as a condition of naturalization, 186; - further remarks, 190; - on the Quaker memorial, 202; - calls up memorial of Pennsylvania Society, 208; - further remarks, 229; - on discrimination among the public creditors, 219; - moves report on memorial of officers of the navy, 239; - do. remarks on, 239; - on a seat of Government, 246; - on the petition of Catharine Greene, 339; - on the reduction of the army, 399; - further remarks, 403; - on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 550, 551; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 647. - -HATHORN, JOHN, Representative from New York, 43, 175, 260, 608. - -HAVENS, JONATHAN N., Representative from New York, 604. - -HAWKINS, BENJAMIN, Senator from North Carolina, 170, 251, 309, 380, - 441, 520. - -HEATH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 455, 527, 604; - on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 549; - on the execution of the British treaty, 719. - -HEISTER, DANIEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 21, 175, 255, 315, - 458, 528, 604; - appointed by the House to make list of votes for President as they are - counted in the Senate, 22; - advocates encouragement to growth of hemp by duty, 37; - appointed on committee to draft bill on tonnage duties, 57; - moves to select Harrisburg for the seat of Government, 151. - -_Hemp_, debate on duty on, 36, 37; - do. fixed, 38. - -HENDERSON, THOMAS, Representative from New Jersey, 606. - -HENRY, JOHN, Senator from Maryland, 10, 168, 254, 312, 382, 523, 591. - -HILLHOUSE, JAMES, Representative from Connecticut, 315, 389, 456, - 527, 604; - on the ratio of representation, 327; - on vacancy of Presidency, 335; - on the reduction of the army, 414; - on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 429; - on the advance of money to France, 514; - on the President's speech, 532, 540; - on thanks to General Wayne, 542; - on damages by Pennsylvania insurgents, 547, 554; - on the admission of foreigners to citizenship, 560; - on the resolutions relative to intruders on Indian lands, 585; - on the resolution relative to bribery, 622; - on a salary for members of Congress. 635; - on the pay of the Speaker, 638; - on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 690; - on the execution of the British treaty, 721; - on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 751. - -HINDMAN, WILLIAM, Representative from Maryland, 457, 527, 604. - -HOLLAND, JOHN, Representative from North Carolina, 604; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 661; - on the execution of the British treaty, 730. - -HOLTEN, SAMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 455, 527. - -_House_, elects Frederick A. Muhlenberg Speaker, 9; - of Representatives, meets in Senate Chamber to count electoral votes, 10; - meets Senate to count electoral votes, 22; - proceedings relative to Washington's inaugural, 46; - answer to same, 47, 53; - thanks presented to the Speaker, 90; - conference with the Senate on the impost bill, 113; - results of, 113; - adjournment of, 167; - journal of, title of, 176; - answer to President's speech, 178; - answer to President's address at 3d session, 1st Congress, 259; - answer to President's message, 316; - answer to the President's message, 389; - answer to the President's address, 456; - answer of, to President's speech, 609; - answer to the President's speech, 2d session, 3d Congress, 541. - -HUGER, DANIEL, Representative from South Carolina, 27, 175, 255, 315, - 390. - -HUNTER, JOHN, Representative from South Carolina, 457, 528; - on the relief of the French emigrants, 474. - -HUNTINGDON, SAMUEL, votes for, as Vice President, 10. - -HUNTINGTON, BENJAMIN, Representative from Connecticut, 21, 175, 255; - on application to amend the constitution, 48; - urges limitation of the impost bill, 79; - on the power of removal, 103; - on the amendment to the constitution relative to freedom of conscience, 137; - opposes easy terms of naturalization, 189; - on memorial of officers of navy, 240; - on a seat of Government, 242. - - -I - -_Imports.--See Duties_ on imports. - -_Indemnity_, for spoliations.--_See Great Britain._ - -_Indian lands within a State, Rights over._--The claim of Thomas Person - to certain lands on the frontier of North Carolina, and ceded by the United - States Commissioners to the Indians, considered, 576; - _note_, 576; - the conduct of other States, 576; - the Government of the United States has converted property of the citizens - of North Carolina, and they ask compensation, 576; - examination of authorities on the rights of the sovereign to take property, - 576; - detail of the circumstances of the present dispute, 577; - the claim of North Carolina to sell the land was wrong, 578; - the cause of all the disputes with the Federal Government, 578; - have the United States taken away any claim which the purchasers of these - lands had, 578; - suitable method to settle the matter, 578; - Indians never occupied the lands, 578; - on the limits of the States and the right to what was jointly acquired, 579; - North Carolina could grant only the pre-emption right, 579; - further details respecting the grants in North Carolina, 579; - these lands within the limits guaranteed by the articles of Confederation, - 580; - further particulars, 580; - resolutions reported to the House, 582; - do. further reported, 583. - -_Indian lands disposed of by the Legislature of Georgia_, considered, - 583; - resolutions on the subject, 584; - they subject persons to martial law, 584; - amendment proposed, 584; - also that persons in pursuit of Indians should not be liable to the law, - 584; - useless to expend money to protect the frontier if this permission is - granted, 585; - better declare there shall be no frontier, 585; - no man could be arrested under this amendment, 585; - amendment carried in committee, 585; - reported to House, 586; - reasons for authorizing pursuit of Indians, 587; - importance of the amendment, 587; - further considerations, 588; - lost, 589. - -_Indians, Southern_, treaty to be negotiated with, 18. - -_Indian Trading Houses_, bill for establishing trading houses for - supplying Indians considered, 585; - tends to conciliate an unhappy and distressed people, 585; - bill of utmost consequence, 586; - system of arrangements for the frontiers proposed, 586; - bill to establish trading post considered, 624; - amendments made, 624; - the object of the bill unattainable, 624; - it effects a change in our system, 625; - influence of the Canada traders, 625; - _note_, 625; - objects of the measure, 625; - bill put on its passage, 625; - principles of the bill considered, 634; - no opinion of governmental bargains, 634; - _note_, 634; - bill passed, 635. - -_Indian Tribes._--Message from the President on disputes between the same - and some of the States, 16. - -_Instruction_, right of debate on, 138. - -_Insurgents of Pennsylvania.--See Pennsylvania Insurgents._ - -_Intercourse Foreign_.--On the bill providing means of intercourse with - foreign nations, 242; - moved to strike out thirty and insert forty thousand dollars, 242; - reasons urged in opposition, 242; - reasons urged in favor of the motion, 242; - motion adopted, 242. - -_Invalid Pensions_, bill reported, 406. - -IRVINE, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 455, 551. - -IZARD, RALPH, Senator from South Carolina, 10,168,251,309, 380, 441, - 520; - on committee on future disposition of papers of late Secretary of Congress, - 10; - added to Judiciary committee, 10; - on committee for conducting reception of President, 11; - on committee to wait on Vice President, 11. - - -J - -JACKSON, GEO., Representative from Virginia, 604. - -JACKSON, JAMES, Representative from Georgia, 42, 175, 255; - remarks in favor of reducing duties, 44; - remarks on tonnage duties, 48; - on power of Congress to require oaths of State officers, 51; - objects to high duties on account of expense of their collection, 64; - temptation to smuggle, 64; - considers subject of title for President as trifling, 68; - urges postponement of consideration of duty on African slaves imported, 73; - further remarks, 74; - urges limitation to impost bill, 81; - on the power of the President to remove officers, 87; - remarks on citizenship and foreign allegiance, 98; - opposes discrimination in the pay of Senators and Representatives, 123; - further remarks, 126; - on the form of amending the constitution, 136; - on the rights of instruction, 139; - on location of a seat of Government, 149; - on amendments of the Senate to House bill on seat of Government, 165; - on subjects embraced in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 182; - further remarks, 183, 184; - on testimonials of behavior and conduct as requisites of naturalization, - 187; - favors a progressive and probational naturalization, 189; - further remarks, 189; - a funded debt is an injury, 191; - further remarks, 195, 197, 199; - opposes a commitment of the Quaker memorial, 202; - on property of master in the slave, 209; - on discrimination among the public creditors, 216; - further remarks, 217; - on memorial of Officers of the Navy, 240; - on answer to the President's message, 256; - further remarks, 257; - on price of public lands, 261; - moves to strike out essential part of first clause of bill relating to - duties on distilled spirits, 261; - remarks on, 261; - further remarks, 264,270,271,272; - on the commitment of the bill for Bank of the United States, 272; - speech on the Bank, 285; - petition on election and return of Anthony Wayne, 324; - Senator from Georgia, 445, 520. - -JACOBS, ISAAC, Representative from Pennsylvania, 389. - -_Jails of the States_, resolutions on, 308. - -JAY, JOHN, votes for, as Vice President in 1789, 10. - -JEFFERSON, THOMAS, desires to return from France as Minister, 15; - votes for, as Vice President in 1793, 386. - -JOHNS, KINSEY, claims a seat as Senator from Delaware--claim - considered, 453; - rejected, 453. - -JOHNSON, WM. S., Senator from Connecticut, 9, 168, 254; - resigned, 309; - on committee on future disposition of papers of late Secretary of Congress, - 10; - on committee of arrangements for reception of President, 10; - on committee to prepare answer to Washington's inaugural, 12; - on committee on titles of President and Vice President, 13. - -JOHNSTON, SAMUEL, Senator from North Carolina, 171, 251, 309, 383. - -JOHN TORREY.--Petition of, in Committee of the Whole on report of - Secretary of Treasury, 317; - Congress promised half-pay to the officers who should continue in service to - _the end of the War._--Major Torrey continued in service till near end of - 1783 and died, did he continue in service to the end of the war? 318; - peace concluded April, 1783, 318; - what was the intention of the parties in this contract? 318; - when did the war end? 318; - what does the law of nations say? 318; - distinction between preliminaries and a definite treaty by the law of - nations, 318; - objections considered, 319; - the question does not turn on a judicial principle, 319; - certain established rules have been observed in settling with every officer, - 320; - terms of contract decided by the sovereign power, 320; - motion for accepting report carried, 320. - -_Judiciary_, Senate committee on, first Congress, 10. - - -K - -_Kentucky_, memorial of a convention in, 253; - vote for President in 1793, 385. - -KEY, PHILIP, Representative from Maryland, 388. - -KING, RUFUS, Senator from New York, 16, 168, 251, 312, 380, 444, - 520, 591; - on answer to Presidents speech, 594. - -KITCHELL, AARON, Representative from New Jersey, 316, 388, 455, 527, - 604; - on the ratio of representation, 328; - on the execution of the British treaty, 734. - -KITTERA, JOHN W., Representative from Pennsylvania, 323, 388, 455, - 527, 604; - on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 569; - on the right to Indian lands within a State, 578; - on the execution of the British treaty, 729. - - -L - -LA FAYETTE, bill relative to the accounts of, 448; - son of, letter from, 740. - -_Lands, Western_, disposal of, 99; - report of committee, 113; - plan of land office, 115. - _See Public Lands._ - -LANGDON, JOHN, Senator from New Hampshire, 9, 168, 251, 309, 380, - 441, 520, 590; - elected President of Senate, 9; - on committee of arrangements for reception of President, 10; - address to Vice President on his taking the chair, 11; - administers the oath to the Vice President according to law, 15; - elected President of Senate _pro tem._, in the absence of Vice - President, and President _pro tem._, 380; - elected President _pro tem._ of Senate, 441. - -LATIMER, HENRY, Representative from Delaware, 527. - -LATIMER, HUGH, Senator from Maryland, 524, 591. - -LAWRENCE, JOHN, Representative from New York, 22, 175, 255, 315, - 388; - remarks on laying duties on imports as proposed, 24; - remarks on duty on distilled spirits, 38; - favors high duty on beer, 33; - do. duty on candles, 35; - advocates duty on salt, 39, 40; - on requiring oaths of State officers, 52; - favors permanent rate of tonnage duties, 55, 56; - on the object of duties, 65; - doubts the propriety of limiting the impost bill, 78; - on duties of Secretary of Treasury, 112; - on the compensation of the President, 116; - opposes furnishing houses, &c., 116; - on the form of amending the constitution, 135; - on the location of the seat of Government, 149; - on the manner of persuading members, 154; - on the constitutional requirements for a seat of Government, 160; - on the mode and reason for admitting foreigners to citizenship, 185; - further remarks, 187; - on the validity of the full amount of the debt, 195; - on effects of stopping importation of slaves, 202; - on Pennsylvania memorial, 209; - presents the address of Society of Friends in New York against the African - slave trade, 211; - on discrimination of public creditors, 213; - on a seat of Government, 244; - further remarks, 247; - moves to strike out "Potomac," and insert Baltimore, 249; - on price of public lands, 261; - further remarks, 262; - on excise bill, 264; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 268; - on officers, 271; - on the commitment of the bill for a bank of the United States, 273; - speech on the bank, 284; - on claim of John Torrey, 317; - on ratio of representation, 320; - further remarks, 322; - on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fishery, 361; - on attendance of Secretary of War, 391, 392; - on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 394; - on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 426; - further remarks, 427. - -LEARNED, AMASA, Representative from Connecticut, 315, 388, 455, 527. - -LEE, RICHARD BLAND, Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 235, 317, - 465, 527; - on duty on steel, 35; - on duty on nails, &c., 38; - makes report of Committee on Messages between the two Houses, 45; - favors a limited time for the impost bill to be in force, 77; - on citizenship during absence, 97; - favors discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses of Congress, - 123; - offers a resolution on the principles which should control the choice of a - seat of Government, 146; - further remarks, 147; - vote, 147; - further remarks, 148; - do. on the Potomac, 153, 161; - in favor of New York for seat of Government, 163; - do. on amendments of the Senate to House bill on seat of Government, 165; - on a seat of Government, 243; - on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 429; - on harmony between the Eastern and Southern States, 560. - -LEE, RICHARD HENRY, Senator from Virginia, 9, 254; - on committee on rules in cases of conference, 1st Congress, 10; - do. on manner of electing chaplains, 10; - do. on rules of business, 10; - appointed on Judiciary Committee, 1st Congress, 10; - on committee for conducting reception of President, 11; - on committee on titles of President and Vice President, 13. - -LEONARD, GEORGE, Representative from Massachusetts, 21, 175, 250, - 388, 604. - -LEWIS, ----, counsel for petitioners relative to seat of Albert - Gallatin, 449; - speech of, 449, 452. - -_Liberty street_, New York, name of, 563. - -_Lighthouses, &c._, bill for the establishment of, passed, 129. - -LINCOLN, BENJAMIN, votes for, as Vice President, 10. - -LINN, WILLIAM, elected chaplain of the House, 46. - -_List of Persons_ employed in Treasury Department reported to the House, - 406; - do. employed in War Department, reported to the House, 406. - -LIVERMORE, SAMUEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 46, 175, 255, - 315, 388; - considers motion to lay duty on African slaves improper at that time, 74; - on the time of extending the impost bill, 77; - on the Executive Departments, 86; - on removals, 89; - on the power to remove officers, 107; - on the power of originating bills, 110; - on a salary for the President, 117; - on form of amending the constitution, 135; - motion relative to the amendment of the constitution touching freedom of - conscience, 138; - on the doctrine of instruction, 142; - further remarks, 143; - on funding the debts of the States 192; - do. on the reduction of the debt from its nominal value, 196; - on discrimination among the public creditors, 227; - on a seat of Government, 247; - on excise bill, 265; - on excise officers, 271; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 267, 268; - on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 360; - on American coins, 371; - further remarks, 371; - against attendance of Secretary of War, 391; - on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 428; - Senator from New Hampshire, 441, 520, 590. - -LIVINGSTON, EDWARD, Representative from New York, 604; - on salary for members of Congress, 636; - on the treaty with Great Britain, 640; - on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 675. - -LOCKE, MATTHEW, Representative from North Carolina, 455, 527, 604. - -LYMAN, SAMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 604; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 658; - on the execution of the British treaty, 706. - -LYMAN, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 455, 527, 604; - on the flag of the Union, 461; - opposes the duties on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, 507; - on the President's speech, 534; - on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 569; - on intruders on Indian lands, 587; - on the reports of the debates, 632; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 670; - on the admission of Tennessee, 755. - - -M - -MCDOWELL, JOSEPH, Representative from North Carolina, 455, 528; - against duty on sugar, 518; - against raising a force for the protection of a S.W. frontier, 517; - on admitting the delegate south of the Ohio, 529; - on the President's speech, 535, 539; - on amending the naturalization laws by requiring foreigners to renounce - their slaves, 559; - on the right to Indian lands within a State, 580; - on difficulties with the Indians, 587. - -MCINTOSH, LACHLAN, nominated as naval officer at Savannah, 17. - -MACLAY, WILLIAM, Senator from Pennsylvania, 9, 168, 251; - appointed on Judiciary Committee, first Congress, 10; - on committee on future disposition of papers of late Secretary of Congress, - 10; - on committee on rules in cases of conference, first Congress, 10; - on manner of electing chaplains, 10; - on rules of business, 10. - -MACLAY, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 604. - -MACON, NATHANIEL, Representative from North Carolina, 388, 455, 527, - 604; - on the right to Indian lands within a State, 579; - on the resolution relative to the heirs of Count de Grasse, 583; - on establishing Indian trading houses, 625, _note_, 625; - on the admission of Tennessee, 756. - -_Madeira Wine_, proposed duty on, 81; - duty on, 32. - -MADISON, JAMES, Jr., Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 255, 315, - 388, 455, 527, 604; - informs the Senate that the House agrees that the notifications of the - election of President and Vice President be made by the former, 10; - on a committee to report a bill regulating oaths, 22; - speech introducing the measure for imposing impost and tonnage duties, 23; - his manner of proceeding, _note_, 23; - further speech on laying duties on imports, 25; - on duty on distilled spirits, 28; on duty on molasses, 29; - on duty on salt beef, 34; - on duty on beer, 34; - proposes duty on hemp, 36, 38; - on duty on nails, &c., 38; - on duty on salt, 40; - opposes duty on teas, 42; - on drawback on distilled spirits, 43; - on high duties, 44; - reports an answer to Washington's Inaugural, 47; - on tonnage duties and their equality, 50; - on tonnage duties, 53, 55; - do. discrimination of, 56; - on the scale of duties proposed, 60, 62; - where the burden of duties would operate, 64; - opposes title for President as hostile to spirit of the Government, 67, 68; - thinks arguments against duty on molasses inconsistent, &c., 71; - further remarks, 71; - remarks on the motion to lay a duty on African slaves imported, 75, 76; - moves a limitation clause to the impost bill--respecting the time of its - continuance, 77; - remarks on the same, 77, 80; - withdraws his motion to limit impost bill and introduces another, 83; - on organization of the Treasury Department, 84; - moves the organization of three departments, 86; - on power of President to remove officers, 86; - further remarks, 87; - remarks on citizenship, 97; - on the admission of Rhode Island, 101; - on the power of removal of officers, 104; - on the power to report plans of revenue by the Secretary of the Treasury, - 112; - on the compensation of the President, 117; - on the compensation of the Vice President, 121; - thinks discrimination in the pay of Senators and Representatives necessary, - 124; - moves a discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses, 131; - on the form of amendment of the constitution, 134; - on the amendment to the constitution relative to the freedom of conscience, - 137; - further remarks, 138; - on the right of instruction, 139; - on the principles which should govern the selection of a seat of Government, - 147; - further remarks, 147, 148, 151; - on deliberation in choosing the seat of Government, 154; - on the place for a seat of Government, 155; - further remarks, 160; constitutional objection, 164; - further remarks on amendments of the Senate, 166; - further remarks, 167; - on census of United States, 181; - on residence as essential to naturalization, 186; - on the constitutional privilege to import African slaves, 201; - further remarks favoring the commitment of the Quaker memorial as harmless, - 204; - on propriety of committing Pennsylvania memorial, 211; - moves to discriminate between original creditors and present holders of - public debt, 205; - do. speech thereon, 205, 223; - announces the death of Dr. Franklin, 239; - on a seat of Government, 245; - further remarks, 248; - on answer to President's message, 258; - on excise bill, 264; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 268; - on the commitment of the bill for a bank of the United States, 273; - do. speech on the bank, 274, 306; - on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 361; - on attendance of the Secretary of War to report, 391, 392; - on the case of General St. Clair, 393; - further, 394; - on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 431; - on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 462; - on the relief of the French emigrants, 474; - on the preparations for the Algerine War, 475, 477, 479; - speech on the commerce of the United States, 458, 465, 469; - on duties on tobacco and sugar, 510; - against the bill to increase the army, 516; - on the delegate south of the Ohio, 531; - on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 549; - on amending naturalization laws, 555; - on the exclusion of titled foreigners from citizenship, 557; - on the renunciation of nobility for citizenship, 562, 565; - on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 567; - on the Randall bribery case, 610; - moves a resolution on post roads, 637; - on the pay of the Speaker, 638; - on the call for papers on the British treaty, 640; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 648; - on the resolutions relative to the refusal of the President to furnish - papers on the treaty with Great Britain, 696; - on the execution of the treaty with Great Britain, 702. - -MALBONE, FRANCIS, Representative from Rhode Island, 457, 527, 604. - -_Malt_, duty on fixed, 38. - -MARSHALL, HUMPHREY, Senator from Kentucky, 591. - -MARTIN, ALEXANDER, Senator from North Carolina, 442, 520, 591. - -_Maryland_, offers ten miles square to Congress for a seat of - Government, 81; vote for President, 10, 385. - -MASON, STEVENS T., Senator from Virginia, 591; on answer - to the President's speech, 594. - -_Massachusetts._--Vote for President, 10, 385. - -MATTHEWS, GEORGE, Representative from Georgia, 175, 255. - -MATTHEWS, JAMES, elected doorkeeper, 10. - -MAXWELL, CORNELIUS, appointed messenger by the Senate, 10. - -MEBANE ALEXANDER, Representative from North Carolina, 455, 527. - -_Members_ of the House.--_See Representation._ - -MERCER, JOHN FRANCIS, Representative from Maryland, 320, 360; - on the protection of the frontiers, 348; - on the stamp of American coins, 372; - on the publication of the debates, 379; - on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 427; - on the legality of the sequestration of British debts, 484. - -_Message, &c._, between the two Houses--report of House Committee, 45; - from the President, 167; - of the President, 251; - from the President, on commerce with England, 308; - of the President, first session, second Congress, 310, _note_, 311; - of the President to Senate, on fugitives from justice, 312; - from the President on defeat of St. Clair, 330; - of the President, with a veto of the apportionment bill, 374; - of the President to second session of second Congress, 381; - from the President, on Spanish interference, 389; - of the President to first session of third Congress, 442; - of the President, on foreign relations, 443; - of President, relative to South-western frontier, 447; - from the President, relative to foreign relations, 454; - of the President, to second session of third Congress, 520; - of President to the House, declining to furnish papers relative to the - treaty with Great Britain, 692, _note_, 692; - message, see _Address_. - -MILLEDGE, JOHN, Representative from Georgia, 396, 605; - on the reduction of the army, 407; - on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 685. - -MILTON, JOHN, votes for, as Vice President, in 1789, 10. - -_Mint, establishment of._--Bill from the Senate to establish a mint - considered, 371; - moved to strike out clause requiring a representation of the head of the - President, &c., on the coins, and insert emblems of Liberty, &c., 371; - the practice of monarchs not to be regarded 371; - the emblems of Liberty more acceptable to the people, 371; - no consequence whether the head of Liberty or that of the President is on - the coins, 371; - motion carried, 371; - disagreement of the Senate, 371; - moved that the House recede, 371; - no friend of the President could refuse such a tribute to him, 372; - compared with the other representation, 372; - tyrants' heads have been stamped on the coin, 372; - republican cautions not a subject to be treated with levity, 372; - motion to recede lost, 373; - facts relative to the coinage of cents, 546; - committee of examination, &c., appointed, 547. - -MITCHELL, STEPHEN MIX, Senator from Connecticut, 442, 524. - -_Molasses_, proposed duty on, 29; - duty on, 31; - duty on considered, 69; - decided, 73. - _See Duties on imports._ - -MONROE, JAMES, Senator from Virginia, 251, 380, 441. - -MONTGOMERY, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 456, 528; - on Indian trading houses, 586. - -MOORE, ANDREW, Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 255, 315, 388, - 455, 527, 604; - on duty on hemp, 36, 37; - opposes duty on salt as unjust, 39; - opposes discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses, 124; - on the reduction of the army, 410; - on the execution of the British treaty, 727. - -MORRIS, ROBERT, Senator from Pennsylvania, 9, 168, 251, 309, 380, - 441, 520. - -MUHLENBERG, FREDERICK A., Representative from Pennsylvania, 21, 175, - 255, 315, 388, 455, 527, 604; - elected Speaker, 21; - speech on thanks tendered him by the House, 308; - chosen Speaker, 455; - do. _note_, 455; - against a duty of two cents on sugar, 511; - answer to thanks of House, 590. - -MUHLENBERG, PETER, Representative from Pennsylvania, 21, 175, - 255, 315, 388, 455, 527; - on committee for reception of President, 27; - appointed on a committee to draft a bill relative to the importation of -African slaves, 84. - -MURRAY, WILLIAM VANS, Representative from Maryland, 320, 388, 456, - 527, 604; - does a resignation produce a vacancy, 329; - on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 351; - further remarks, 356; - on attendance of Secretary of War, 392; - on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 395; - on the reduction of the army, 414; - on the relief of the Trench emigrants, 474; - on conducting the Algerine war, 478; - against continuing the embargo, 501; - on force to protect S. W. frontier, 517; - on the President's speech, 532, 536; - on thanks to Gen. Wayne, 544; - on the renunciation of nobility for citizenship, 562; - for the reference of letter of Secretary of War, 566, 567; - on the right to Indian lands within a State, 578; - on Indian trading houses, 586; on intruders on Indian lands, 588; - on the answer to President's speech, 606; - on the attempt at bribery by Robert Randall, 610, 612; - statement of the case of Randall and Whitney, 617; - on establishing Indian trading-houses, 625; - on the support of existing establishments, 627, 628; - on the pay of the Speaker, 639; - opposes the resolution calling for papers on British treaty, 640. - - -N - -_Nails and Spikes_, debate on duty on, 38; do. fixed, 38. - -_Naturalization Laws._--The bill under consideration, 184; - motion to strike out "and shall have resided in the U. S. one year," 184; - it was policy to let aliens come in and take the oath, and hold lands - without any residence, 184; - some security for their fidelity and allegiance was required, 185; - without a residence the terms are too cheap, 185; - policy of European nations, 185; - does not apply here, 185; - we should be inconsistent by prescribing too long a term for the enjoyment - of our privileges, 185; - foreign merchants could evade additional duties on foreign vessels unless - residence was required, 185; - the reason of admitting foreigners is to encourage emigration and people our - large tract of country, 185; - a long term may restrain emigration, 185; - cautions necessary to guard against abuses, 186; - the object is not merely to swell the catalogue of the people, but add to - the wealth and strength of the community, 186; - the admission step by step is a nice question, but residence should be - required, 186; - a sufficient residence should be required for the privilege of electing and - being elected, 186; - many of the States admit aliens step by step, 186; - doubtful if the constitution authorizes Congress to say on what terms aliens - may hold land in the respective States, 186; - Congress possesses power only to make a uniform rule of naturalization, 186; - if the motion prevails, vagrants, paupers, and outcasts of Europe will find - too easy an admission to citizenship, 187; - some probation necessary and testimonials of a proper and decent behavior, - 187; - no creditable man can think such terms difficult, 187; - grand jury or district courts could determine on the character of the man, - 175; - excluding bad men impracticable, 187; - propriety of residence doubted, 187; - every person, rich or poor, adds to our wealth and strength, 187; - citizenship can be made progressive, 187; - policy of settling the vacant territory by emigration doubtful, 188; - some probation requisite, 188; - some classes should be received with encouragement, 188; - others excluded, 188; - naturalization progressive in England, 189; - in some States an act of the Legislature is now required--this is - sufficiently easy, 189; - unless some residence is required confusion may arise, 189; - no person should hold land without a residence and an intention of becoming - a citizen, 189; - story of voting in Philadelphia, 189; - two years inserted in the bill, _note_, 190; - act to establish a uniform rate of naturalization considered, 555; - moved to insert the words "attached to a Republican form of government," - 555; - or "attached to the Constitution of the United States," 555; - both superfluous, 555; - word Republican very indefinite, 555; - do. used in the constitution, 555; - difficult for many citizens to find two reputable witnesses, 555; - other amendments proposed, 555; - do. to strike out word "moral" in the words good moral character, 556; - the word too strict, 556; - the whole useless, 556; - moved to exclude from citizenship any emigrant who had borne a title of - nobility, 557; - reasons for the same, 557; - better be required to renounce every thing contrary to the spirit of the constitution, 557; - nothing more grateful to a republican than to see them renounce their - titles, 557; - the title is destroyed when the allegiance is broken, 558; - if we cannot manufacture a commodity at home, it is unlawful to import it - from abroad, 558; - yeas and nays threatened, 558; - moved to amend by requiring the emigrant to renounce the possession of all - slaves, 558; - not a proper connection with the subject, 558; - the amendment unnecessary, as slavery was declining fast as possible, 558; - the amendment a retaliation upon those who call for the yeas and nays, 559; - both amendments unnecessary, 559; - what right had the House to say one class of people shall not have that kind - of property which others have? 559; - amendment withdrawn, 560; - further discussion relative to renouncing titles of nobility, 561, 562, 563, - 564, 565; - amendment adopted, 566. - -_Naval Establishment_, on a permanent, 481. - -_Navy, officers of._--Report of the committee on the memorial of officers - of the Navy relative to a difference of pay compared with the officers of the - army, 239; - justice of their claims, 240; - origin of commutation, 240; - the grounds of their claims, 240; - circumstances which led to a distinction, 240; - no precedent for extending commutation to officers of the navy, 240; - examination of the grounds of these demands, 241; - difference between officers of the army and navy, 241; - claims strictly just, 241. - -NEVILLE, JOSEPH, Representative from Virginia, 456, 527. - -NEW, ANTHONY, Representative from Virginia, 455, 527, 606. - -_New Hampshire_, vote for President, 10, 385. - -_New Jersey_, vote for President, 10, 385. - -_New York City_ Corporation, vote of thanks to, 250. - -_New York_, vote for President in 1793, 385. - -NICHOLAS, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 455, 528, 606; - on the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 463; - on the relief of, 474; - speech on the commerce of the United States, 468; - on the power of the Algerines, 476, 478; - on the advance of money to France, 514; - on the bill to protect the South-western frontiers, 517; - on the President's speech, 532, 536, 538; - on indemnification to sufferers by the Pennsylvania insurgents, 541, 548; - on amending the naturalization laws, 555, 556; - on exclusion of titled foreigners from citizenship, 558; - on the reference of a letter of the Secretary of War, 566; - on the reduction of salaries, 572; - on the right to Indian lands within a State, 577; - on the Randall bribery case, 615; - on the resolution relative to bribery, 621; - on the support of existing establishments, 628; - on a stenographer for the House, 631; - on a salary for members of Congress, 636; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 641; - on the execution of the British treaty, 710; - on the military and naval appropriations, 766. - -NILES, NATHANIEL, Representative from Vermont, 317, 388, 527; - on the Electoral College, 333; - on the flag of the Union, 461. - -_Non-intercourse_ with Great Britain, _see Great Britain_. - -_North Carolina_, vote for President in 1793, 385. - - -O - -_Oaths_, a bill to regulate the time and manner of administering certain, - reported, 11; - administered to Vice President and each Senator, 15; - to Secretary of Senate, 15; - leave to bring in a bill, in the House--form of, for the members of the - House, 22; - of President--proceedings of the House after its administration, 46. - - Amendments of the Senate to the bill regulating the time and manner of - taking oaths, 51; - whence is derived the power to oblige members of State Legislatures to take this oath? 51; - no doubt respecting the powers of Congress on the subject, 51; - if left to State Legislatures, different laws might be passed, and different - degrees of obligation required, 51; - the power appears to be generally conceded; the principle of policy should - be examined, 51; - not a suitable time; it argues a jealousy in the national Government, 52; - the States should comply with an act of Congress, 52; - Congress has not the power to carry it into effect, 52; - Congress has such power, 52; - the policy depends on a variety of circumstances, 52; - it may be considered an interference with the State Governments, 53; - no reason offered by the Senate for concurrence, 53; - a general provision better than particular ones, 53; - no other Legislature capable to make one, 53; - it is the duty of the House to detail the general principles laid down by - the constitution, and reduce them to practice, 53. - -O'BRIEN, RICHARD, petition of, 389. - -_Officers_, removal of, 102; - debate on the power of the President, 103. - _See Executive Departments._ - -ORR, ALEXANDER D., Representative from Kentucky, 457, 528. - -OTIS, SAMUEL ALYNE, elected Secretary of the Senate, 10. - - -P - -PAGE, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 317, 388, 477, - 546, 604; - presides in Committee of Whole, 22, 24, 27, 33, 37, 39, 41, 42; - on application to amend the constitution, 48; - on tonnage duties--experience of Virginia, 56; - presides in Committee of the Whole, 57, 58, 71; - opposed to all titles for the President, 66, 68; - on the admission of Rhode Island, 101; - remarks on the Treasury Department, 109; - further remarks, 110; - on the compensation of President, &c., 116; - further remarks, 119; - do. on Vice President, 122; - on amount of compensation of members, 129, 132; - on the right of Instruction, 139; - do. further, 143; - on the admission of reporters for the press, 180; - on making easy terms of naturalization, 185, 187; - on the public debt, 193; - urges commitment of Pennsylvania memorial, 210; - on discrimination among the public creditors, 221; - do. further remarks, 228; - on a seat of Government, 247; - speech on ratio of Representation, 325; - a bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 364; - on the head to be stamped on American coins, 371, 372; - on discharging committee in case of St. Clair, 395; - on reference to the Committee of the Whole of the resolutions relative to - the official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 420; - on the exclusion of titled foreigners from citizenship, 557; - on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 570; - on the reduction of salaries, 573; - on the support of existing establishments, 627; - on the pay of the Speaker, 638; - on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 664; - on the execution of the British treaty, 726. - -PAINE, ELIJAH, Senator from Vermont, 591. - -PAINE, WINGATE, Representative from New Hampshire, 455, 527. - -_Paris._--Letter of President of Commonalty on death of Dr. Franklin, - 256. - -PARKER, JONATHAN, Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 259, 388; - appointed by House to make list of votes for President when counted in the - Senate, 22; - appointed on Committee of Supplies, 46; - appointed of Committee of Conference on subject of title of - President--because it is all repugnant to republicanism, 67; - moves a duty on importation of African slaves, 73, 74; - withdraws motion for duty on African slaves, 76; - appointed on committee to draft a bill relative to the importation of - African slaves, 84; - on duties on distilled spirits, 263; - further remarks, 264. - -PARKER, JOSIAH, Representative from Virginia, 456, 527, 604; - on the reduction of the army, 399; - further remarks, 405; - on the commerce of the United States, 472; - against the embargo laws, 499; - on the President's speech, 539; - on resolutions of thanks to General Wayne, 543; - on Indian trading houses, 585; - on the address to the President, 605, 606; - on establishing Indian trading houses, 625, 633. - -PARTRIDGE, GEORGE, Representative from Massachusetts, 22, 175, 255; - on duty on molasses, 31; - on duty on hemp, 36, 37. - -PATERSON, WILLIAM, Senator from New Jersey, 9, 168; - appointed on Judiciary Committee, first Congress, 10; - on committee to prepare answer to Washington's Inaugural, 12; - resigns his seat in Senate, 251. - -PATTON, JOHN, Representative from Delaware, 457, 604. - -_Pennsylvania._--Vote for President, 10, 385. - -_Pennsylvania Insurgents._--The recommendation of compensation to the - sufferers by the Pennsylvania insurgents considered, 546; - proposed to confine it to officers of the Government, 547; - sound policy required indemnification of the sufferers, 547; - the whole affair but a trifle, not twenty thousand dollars, 547; - there should be no discrimination, 547; - it should be confined to persons who had suffered in defence of Government, - 547; - a private person more entitled to indemnification than revenue officers who - are paid for their services, 547; - let the sufferers have recourse to the laws, 547; - Government equally bound to make compensation to those who suffered by - British soldiers, 548; - amendment rejected, 548; - on the bill before the House, immediate indemnity, objected to, 548; - if you pay the claims you cut off civil process, 549; - it becomes a precedent, 549; - the measure will encourage a spirit to suppress insurrections, and it may - encourage insurrections, 549; - resolution is unsound policy, 549; - the subject should be postponed to another session, 550; - no civil process will lie in the case, 550; - the amendment to confine the damages to citizens personally aiding or - assisting the officers, considered, 551; - it becomes the honor and justice of the Legislature to indemnify them, 551; - the point of law considered relative to civil actions, 552; - the British had practised indemnification to the Royalists, 553; - previous question carried, 553; - other amendments added, 554. - -PERSON, THOMAS, petition of, _see Indian lands_ within States, &c. - -_Petition_, of Catharine Greene, 335; - of William Dunbar, in behalf of the heir of George Galphin, 383; - of Richard O'Brien, 339; - of Warner Mifflin, on subject of negro slavery, 397; - to make Hudson, N. Y., port of entry, 410; - of Conrad Laub, respecting the seat of Albert Gallatin in the Senate, 442; - from the Quakers of Rhode Island, relative to the slave trade, 446. - -_Philadelphia._--Letter from Commissioners offering Congress the Court - House, 251. - -PICKENS, ANDREW, Representative from South Carolina, 457, 528. - -PINKNEY, WILLIAM, resignation of, 320. - -_Post Office._--Bill to establish post offices and post roads, 249; - moved to empower Postmasters General to establish certain roads under the - direction of the President, 249; - reasons for opposing a concurrence in this amendment, 249; - reasons in favor of the amendment, 249. - - _Franking Privilege_ under consideration, 330; - it is presumed no gentleman will ask a member to frank for him, 330; - if abuses arise, Legislature can correct them, 330; - to take away privilege of franking would level a deadly stroke at the - freedom of the press, 331; - dangerous to take any measures that may stop the channels of public - information, 331; - franking granted, not as a personal benefit, but for the good of the - constituents, 331; - means of bringing much information to the House, 331; - some restrictions can be put on it, 331; - equally as objectionable in the hands of the President, 331; - so long as it is advantageous to citizens it should not be relinquished, - 331; - motion to withdraw the privilege from members of both Houses, 332; - the security of the people is that their Representatives are subject to the - same regulations as themselves, 332; - Congress enjoys only such rights as are mentioned in the charter, 332; - people view this privilege with a jealous eye, 332; - example of Great Britain shows to what an enormous height the abuse can be - carried, 332; - the privilege is unequal in its operation, 332; - the diminution of revenue not a sufficient reason for abolishing the - privilege, 332; - revenue a secondary consideration, 332; - if this privilege be taken away, the avenues of information cut off, 333; - various other considerations in favor of retaining the privilege considered, - 333; - bill passed, 335. - - _Post Roads_ from Maine to Georgia, resolution relative to a survey - of, &c., considered, 637; - the business of the General Government to undertake the improvement of - roads, 637; - present roads greatly improved by adopting the resolution, 637; - not right to apply revenues of post office to this object, 637; - resolution offered by Mr. Madison, 637. - -POTTS, RICHARD, Senator from Maryland, 384, 447, 524, 591. - -_Presidency, Vacancy in._--Bill declaring what officer, in case of - vacancy in the offices of President and Vice President, shall act as - President, 267; - it must be an officer of the United States by the constitution, 267; - shall he hold for the remainder of the term, or only until a new election? - 267; - Secretary of State, 267; - President of the Senate, _pro tem._, moved, 267; - this last motion repugnant to the constitution, 267; - the matter is left with the Legislature, 267; - Chief Justice a suitable officer, 268; - objections to different officers, 268; - delay urged, 268; - unnecessary, 268; - considerations respecting various officers, 269; - the contingency might not happen more than once in eight hundred years, 270; - further objections to Secretary of State, 270; - motion to strike out clause providing the President of the Senate, _pro - tem._, or the Speaker of the House shall act as President, in case of a - vacancy, 334; - subject of not immediate importance, 334; - objected to as not connected with other parts of the bill, 334; - necessary the business should be decided, 334; - bill unconstitutional--neither the President, _pro tem._, nor Speaker, - nor officers of the government in the sense contemplated, 334; - Speaker no more an officer of the government than any member of the House, - 334; - unconstitutionality further considered, 334. - -_President_, vote for, in 1789, 10; - in 1793, 385; - compensation of, 16, 17; - message on disputes between some of the States and the Indian tribes, 16; - on the rejection by the Senate of the nomination of Benjamin Fishbourn, 17; - meets the Senate in consultation, 18; - _note_, 18; - message to Senate on hostilities of Wabash Indians, 19; - on ratification of treaties with Indian tribes, 19; - message communicating the death of the Dauphin of France to the Senate, 20; - on adjournment of Congress, 20; - his reply to the address of the House, 57; - his power to remove officers, 86; - declared by vote, 90; - compensation of, 116; - debate on, 116; - salary fixed, 120; - message to House, 167; - his reply to address of the Senate, 170; - his term of office, when commenced, 171; - his message to the Senate on the accession of Rhode Island to the Union, - 172; - on conferring a brevet commission on a French officer, 172; - message from, to the Senate, 173; - _note_, 173; - question of consultation addressed to the Senate, 173; - message to Senate on treaty with Indian tribes, 173; - his reply to address of the House, 179; - message to Senate on surrender of Western posts by the British, 254; - reply to answer of the Senate, 313; - reply to address of House, 316; - reply to Senate's address, 383; - inaugural address at second election, 387; - counting votes for, 418; - answer to address of the Senate, 444; - reply to address of the House, 457; - reply to Senate's address, 523; - reply to House address, 542; - message to Senate with colors of French Republic, 597; - answer to address of the House, 597; - reply to address of the House, 609; - message to the House with the French Flag, 616; - answer to French Minister on presentation of French Flag, 617; - message relative to intruders on Cherokee lands, 635. - -PRESTON, FRANCIS, Representative from Virginia, 455, 527, 606; - on the execution of the British treaty, 740. - -_Protection_ of American commerce, _see Commerce_; - do. of frontiers, _see Frontiers_. - -_Protective duties_, how far sustained by the debate on the impost bill, - _note_, 84. - -_Protest_, or dissent of any Senator--motion to grant right to enter on - the journal of the Senate--negatived, 16. - -PROVOST, SAMUEL, elected chaplain of the Senate, 11. - -_Public lands_, debate on resolutions respecting the disposal of the land - in the Western territory, 99; - speedy measures necessary to be taken, 99; - a land office should be opened to sell the land in small quantities, 99; - great numbers of people are on the ground waiting to purchase, 100; - they will move to Spanish Territory, or take possession of ours without - leave, 100; - other reasons showing the necessity of doing something, 100; - this business should not be precipitated, 101; - some early measures necessary, 101. - - Resolution to establish a land office and fix terms of granting vacant lands - in the west, considered, 113; - character of the emigration, 114; - adhesion to the Union, 115; - organization of a land office, 115; - its system of business, 115; - resolution adopted, 116; - on a resolution to establish a land office at the seat of Government, &c., - 260; - details of the business, 260; - better to settle general principles, 260; - perfect liberty in selection by purchasers most for the interest of the - Government, 260; - reasons against indiscriminate location, 260; - bad effects of, 261; - manner of laying out land by late Congress, 261; - moved that the price thirty cents per acre be struck out, 261; - various prices proposed, 261; - motion lost, 261; - moved--the price be not less than thirty cents per acre, 261; - the policy of the Government is to fix a price so reasonable that any can - pay, 261; - relative value of lands in several States, 261; - no discretion for determining the price should be left to any one, 262; - considerations for and against fixing a price, 262; - practice of some States, 262. - - -Q - -_Question_, the previous--_note_, 101; - ordered, 102. - -_Quorum_, at first session of Senate when formed, 9. - - -R - -RAMSEY, DAVID, petition to the House on eligibility of Wm. Smith, 33. - -RANDALL, ROBERT, charged with an attempt at bribery, 609; - arrest of, 611; - trial before the House, 618. - -READ, GEORGE, Senator from Delaware, 10, 251, 309, 380; - resigns his seat in the Senate, 442. - -READ, JACOB, Senator from South Carolina, 591; - on answer to President's speech, 595. - -READ, JOHN, Representative from Massachusetts, 604; - on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 671. - -_Reception of President_, Senate Committee on, 10; - of President, report of Senate Committee thereon, 11; - of committee on conducting the same, 11; - report of House Committee on, 33; - report of committee appointed for that purpose, 44. - -_Reduction of Salaries_ of Executive officers, clerks, &c., and Senators - and Representatives, &c., motion for a committee to bring in a bill, 571; - a subject of grievous complaint among citizens, 571; - salaries exorbitant, 571; - other circumstances considered, 571; - experience of members of the House, 572; - the motion unnecessary, 573; - the question arises from misapprehension, 574; - the pay of members considered, 574; - of Speakers, 574; - of Senators, 574; - difference between pay of Senators and Representatives, 575, - _note_, 575; - present pay small enough, 575; - motion negatived, 575. - -_Report_ of House Committee on messages, &c., between the two Houses, 45; - of House Committee of Elections on proceedings relative to the petition of - David Ramsey, 45; - of House Committee on title of President, 47; - of committee on unfinished business of last session, 171; - of Special Committee on Quaker memorial, 238; - of Committee of the whole House on Quaker memorial, 239; - _note_, 239; - on memorial of the officers of the navy, 239; - on mode of examining votes for President, 417; - on admission of the delegate south of the Ohio, 530; - on proceedings in the Randall bribery case, 614. - -_Reporters_, their admission to the House, 180; - blunders of, 181. - -_Representation, ratio of_, moved there be one Representative for every - thirty thousand inhabitants, and motion to strike out "thirty," - considered, 320; - sense of the States considered, 321; - one to thirty thousand will not give more than an adequate number, 321; - objection on account of expense, considered, 321; - citizens of United States expect this ratio, 321; - thirty should be struck out, 321; - difficult to do business if representation too numerous, 321; - people will be satisfied if ratio is higher, 321; - it will increase expense and the number of public officers, 322; - two points to be considered, viz., what is the proper number to constitute a - representative body for the United States, and what ratio will leave the - fewest fractions in the States, 322; - thirty-five thousand leave fewest fractions, 322; - an adequate number was the great object, 322; - future sessions will be shorter, 322; - existence of the Union may depend on fulness of representation, 322; - doubtful if a large representation was less liable to corruption than a - small one, 322; - philosophical examination of the principle of representation, 322; - the opinion advanced for reducing the representative branch is a dangerous - error, 323; - situation of the country calls for great extension of the principle of - representation, 323; - other points considered, 323; - the will of the people should be regarded, 324; - expenses, delays, and other objections considered, 324; - is not Congress precluded from exercising any discretion in the matter by - the constitution? 324; - is it expedient to do it? 324; - objects of State and Congressional assemblies, 324; - leave the restriction of the number of members to the people, or to some - future Congress, 325; - Congress being the creature of the people should not lessen the importance - of the people or exclude them from a full share in their own government, 325; - one man cannot know the wishes of thirty-five thousand, therefore the people - should not be desired to accede to that ratio, 325; - it is said the President secured the present ratio to the people, and shall - we be less solicitous than the President? 326; - no danger of disorders from a large number, 326; - if more wisdom is brought into the House by a larger number, is not also - more folly, 326; - the Senate, a smaller body, is as competent as the House, 326; - if we go on theory the representation should be enlarged, 327; - no propriety in comparing - the government to that of Great Britain, 327; - no danger of corruption from a large number, 327; - the constitution secures independence of legislature, 327; - a numerous representation tends to weaken, if not destroy, the Government, - 327; - the proposed amendment to the constitution should be a guide to the House, - 328; - instability of State governments arises from mode of election, 328; - other objections considered, 328; - on the resolution that the representation be one to thirty thousand, - adopted, 328. - - _Apportionment bill_, considered, 374; - the people expect one representative for thirty thousand inhabitants, - according to the constitution, 375; - grounds of this expectation, 375; - the inequality of representation suggested to result from this ratio is more - apparent than real, 375; - objection that the relative influence of the States should not be resorted - to in the apportionment of representatives, considered, 375; - the inconveniences of the rule in their greatest extent can never be very - great, 375; - the increasing representation considered, with a view to the necessity of - establishing in this branch a permanent sympathy with the landed interest, - 376; - organization of a moneyed interest, 376; - apprehensions from the principles beginning to be developed, 377; - thirty-three adopted, 377. - -_Resignation, does it cause a vacancy?_--Wm. Pinkney resigned as - Representative from Maryland without taking the oath or his seat, - John F. Mercer was appointed by the Governor and Council to fill - the vacancy under the laws of Maryland, report on considered, 328; - under the constitution a resignation does not cause a vacancy, 328; - in the British House of Commons there can be no resignation, 329; - under the constitution Executives of States are not judges of a vacancy, - 329; - great inconvenience would result from a rejection of the report, 329; - no analogy between Parliament of Great Britain and this House, 329; - no part of the constitution prohibits a member from resigning, 329; - it is uncertain how the practice of the British Parliament originated, 329; - vacancies can happen from various causes, 329; - difference between a resignation before and after taking a seat, 329; - great inconvenience of contrary course, 329; - the constitution contemplates resignations, 329; - nothing to show resignations may not take place in one House as well as in - the other, 329; - report accepted, 330. - -_Resolution_ on the consideration of all bills on a second reading in the - Senate, 15; - on contested election of Wm. Smith, 94; - on Executive Departments, 94; - relative to Western lands, 100; - _note_, 100; - adopted, 101; - relative to the admission of Rhode Island, 101; - relating to Western lands, 113; - adopted, 114; - on the establishment of a land office, 127; - for a Home department, 127; - of thanks to the Speaker at close first Congress, 129; - on adjournment, 129; - on location of seat of Government, 146; - on a central location, 146; - for the appointment of Commissioners to fix seat of Government on - Susquehanna, &c., 159, 161, 163; - for Commissioners to fix site for a seat of Government, 163; - proviso offered to, 163; - rejection of, 163; - adoption of resolution, 163; - on unfinished business of last session, 171; - on non-intercourse with Rhode Island, 171; - adopted, 173; - of Senate to attend the funeral of Thomas Bland, 172; - _note_ on, 172; - of Senate on secret article of treaty with the Creek nation, 173; - of Senate relative to a treaty with the Cherokee Indians, 174; - of thanks to the Corporation of New York city, 174; - of adjournment, 174; - of House on Chaplain, 175; - relative to an answer to the President's speech, 177; - on public credit, 190; - relative to eulogium on Dr. Franklin, 259; - on jails of the States, 308; - of the Senate, relative to open doors, 313; - on the ratio of representation, 328; - to refer petition of Catharine Greene to select committee, 341; - on the petition of Catharine Greene, 341; - lost, 341; - on the courtesies of France, 370; - on the petition of Catharine Greene, 370; - of Senate respecting open doors, 384; - on the official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 418; - of thanks to Speaker Dayton, 440; - of Senate relative to amendments of the constitution, 445; - of Senate relative to open doors, 448; - relative to British debts, 482; - of non-intercourse with Great Britain, 498; - on indemnity for spoliation, 503; - of amendments to the constitution 524; - on deported slaves of the Revolution, 525; - amendment, 526; - _note_, 526; - of thanks to Gen. Wayne and others, 542, 546; - of thanks to the militia of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and - Virginia, 546; - respecting losses by Pennsylvania insurgents, 554; - on excluding titled foreigners from citizenship, 557; - on the right to Indian lands within a State, 582; - relative to the case of Thomas Person and others, 583; - relative to the heirs of Count de Grasse, 583; - relative to intruders on Indian lands, 584; - relative to Indian lands in Georgia, 584; - relative to open doors in the Senate, 593; - _note_, 594; - in Senate on presentation of French Flag, 597; - relative to attempt at bribery, 621; - on post roads, 637; - on the treaty with Great Britain, 640, 692; - relative to the refusal of the President to furnish papers relative to the - treaty with Great Britain, 696; - _note_, 696; - on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 751. - -_Rhode Island, Admission of._--Resolution desiring Rhode Island to take - the necessary steps for admission into the Union, 101; - propriety of interfering in the matter doubtful, 101; - why interfere in the concerns of sister States who have not joined the - confederacy, 101; - course of Rhode Island, 101; - not proper for this House to expose themselves to have the invitation - rejected, 102; - previous question moved for the first time, 102; - reasons therefor, 102; - decided in the negative, 102; - letter from Governor of, to the President, 171; - proposal of non-intercourse with, 171; - considered in the Senate, 172; - adopted, 173; - vote for President in 1793, 385. - -ROBINSON, MOSES, Senator from Vermont, 380, 441, 520, 590. - -ROSS, JAMES, Senator from Pennsylvania, 523, 591. - -_Rules._--Senate, committee on, in case of conference, 10; - for conducting business, Senate committee on, first Congress, 10; - of the Senate for open doors, 314. - -_Rum._--The word changed to distilled spirits, 28; duty on, 28. - -RUTHERFORD, JOHN, Senator from New Jersey, 309, 380, 441, 523, 591. - -RUTHERFORD, ROBERT, Representative from Virginia, 455, 527, 604; - objects to the duty on salt, 506; - on the President's speech, 538; - on the reduction of salaries, 573; - on the admission of Tennessee, 754. - -RUTLEDGE, JOHN, votes for, as Vice President in 1789, 10. - - -S - -_Salt_, debate on duty on, 38; duty fixed, 41. - -_Salted Provisions_, drawback on, fixed, 41. - -SCHUREMAN, JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 21, 175, 255; - opposes the motion to lay duty on African slaves as improper at that time, 74. - -SCHUYLER, PHILIP, Senator from New York, 16; - draws lots with Rufus King for length of term, 10, 168, 254. - -SCOTT, MAJOR GENERAL, resolution of thanks to, by the House, 546. - -SCOTT, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 175, 255, 455, 530; - remarks on the principle of discrimination in laying duties, 28; - favors duty on hemp, 36; opposes duty on salt, 39; - on Western lands, 99; - on do., encouragement to emigration, 113; - plan of land-office, 115; - on selecting a seat of government, 155; - on a distinction between foreign and domestic creditors, 194; - further remarks, 197; - do. on the discrimination and liquidation of the public debt, 198; - on constitutionality and propriety of Pennsylvania memorial for the - abolition of slavery, 208; - on a seat of Government, 245; - on establishment of a land office, 260; - further remarks, 261; - moves to strike out thirty cents as the price of land, 261; - on the pay of soldiers, 459; - further remarks, 460; - on the relief of the French emigrants, 474; - on exclusion of titled foreigners from citizenship, 558; - on the right to Indian lands within a State, 578; - on intruders on Indian lands, 587. - -_Seat of Government._--Motion to fix a permanent residence for the - general Government of the United States, 145; - a spot on the banks of the Susquehanna regarded as most central, although - south of the centre of population, 145; - resolution to locate on east bank of Susquehanna offered, 146; - a great national question, 146; - a preamble of general principles moved, 146; - spot on the Delaware proposed, do. on the Potomac, 146; - preamble regarded as unnecessary, 146, 147; - voted in the negative, 147; - neither centre of wealth, or population, or locality, should decide, as the - future may make great changes, 147; - the several places should be considered on their merits, 147; - original motion under consideration, 148; - advantages of the banks of the Susquehanna, 148; - the whole thing arranged out doors, let its consistency with general - principles be shown, 148; - answer, 148; - if Eastern members have settled the question let them settle the principles - of the government, 149; - the territorial centrality on the Susquehanna denied, 149; - the place proposed comes within the general principles agreed on, 149; - cannot men consult together who have a common interest, 150; - the Susquehanna south-west of the centre of wealth, &c., 150; - the Potomac regarded as unhealthy, 150; - banks of the Potomac the best place, 150; - advantages of Harrisburg, 151; - advantages of the Potomac, 151; - advantages of the Hudson, 151; - various considerations on the subject, 152; - motion to insert Harrisburg, lost, 153; - motion to strike out "east bank of the Susquehanna," and insert Potomac, - 158; - remarks thereon, 154; - motion for committee to rise, 154; - attempts to precipitate a decision, 154; - a league between the Northern States and Pennsylvania against the South, - 155; - opposition in New England to the Potomac, 155; - this business should be decided under an equal attention to the rights of - the community, 155; - effects of an uncentral location, 156; - seat should be the centre of the Union, 156; - Potomac the centre, 157; - facts respecting the Susquehanna, 157; - objections to the Potomac considered, 157; - arguments in favor of the Susquehanna, 158; - motion to strike out Susquehanna and insert Potomac, lost, 159; - motion to insert "or Potomac" after Susquehanna, lost, 159; - resolution for appointment of commissioners to examine, report to the - President, and purchase on east bank of Susquehanna, &c., offered, 159; - the site should be ceded, 159; - the jurisdiction be exclusive, 160; - several States offered a cession, 160; - the reproach of bargaining, 160; - do. repelled, 160; - opposition of Southern members made to prevent an improper decision, 160; - motion to insert "north bank of Potomac" for east bank of Susquehanna, lost, - 161; - do. to insert Wilmington, &c., lost, 161; - do. to insert Potomac, Susquehanna, or Delaware, lost, 162; - do. to insert "either side of the Delaware," &c., lost, 162; - do. to insert "banks" for east bank, carried, 162; - do. to insert "or Maryland " after Pennsylvania, lost, 162; - do. to insert "Wilmington" for city of New York, lost, 163; - do. to insert "Philadelphia" for New York, lost, 163; - bill to establish a seat of government, considered, 164; - moved to confine the choice between the mouth of Checkiselungo creek and the - mouth of the Susquehanna, 164; - moved to strike out all that part of the bill making New York the temporary - seat of government, as unconstitutional, 164; - bill passed, 164; - do. passed by the Senate, with amendments, and returned to the House, 165; - motion to postpone its consideration, 165; - House should not be influenced by the Senate keeping the appropriation bill - as a hostage, 165; - insinuation wrongful, 165; - amendment of Senate changes the tenor of the bill, 165; - Germantown most proper spot, 165; - arguments for postponement, 166; - motion lost, 166; - motion to concur with Senate, 166; - advantages of Germantown, 166; - a costly location, 167; - a departure from every principle adopted by the House, 167; - an amendment moved and carried, 167; - on Committee of the Whole on a bill from the Senate fixing the temporary and - permanent seat of government, debated, 242; - moved to strike out "Potomac" and insert "a district to include the town of - Baltimore," 242; - centrality is not an idea which predominates in regard to any other country, - 242; - if the clause is struck out the bill will be lost, 242; - consideration of the relative interests of the Southern, Middle, and - Northern States, 243; - a central position necessary, 243; - the merits of the question, 243; - map of the Potomac, 243; - reasons in favor of Baltimore, 243; - objections to the place proposed, 244; - Philadelphia will become the permanent residence, 244; - no necessity for moving temporary residence, 244; - Potomac a national location, 244; - only three States can claim it, 244; - advantages of the Potomac, 245; - advantages and disadvantages of the two places compared, 245; - centrality of the Potomac, 245; - not the time to fix the seat of government, 245; - objections considered, 246; - New York a temporary seat, 246; - history of the Quakers, 246; - conduct of New York during the war, 247; - conduct of her Senators on this question, 247; - Baltimore the place on the map, 247; - character of New York, 247; - advantages of Baltimore, 247; - principles of the bill, 247; - no State has a right to the seat of government, 248; - report of a committee of the late Congress, 248; - Baltimore or the Potomac too far south, 248; - Baltimore nearest the centre, 248; - after present ferment has subsided, Potomac will be considered the bond of - the Union, 248; - improvements on the Potomac, 248; - difficulty of ever removing from Philadelphia if made temporary residence, - 248; - proceedings at last session, 248; - motion lost, 248; - moved to strike out Potomac and insert Delaware, 249; - motion lost, 249; - do. to strike out Potomac and insert Germantown, 249; - do. lost, 249; - do. to strike out Potomac and insert Baltimore, 249; - do. lost, 249; - do. to adjourn, lost, 249; - bill passed, 249; - _note_, 250. - -_Secretaries_, resolution requiring attendance on the House, 390. - -_Secretary_, of the Senate, elected by ballot, 1st Congress, 10. - -_Secretary of the Treasury_, debate on his duties, 109; - on communicating information to the House, 111; - report of, 176; - manner of making it, 177. - _See Treasury._ - -_Secretary of War_, letter from, 393. - _See St. Clair._ - -SEDGWICK, THEODORE, Representative from Massachusetts, 175, 395, 455, - 530, 604; - on removal of officers, 103; - on the compensation of the President, 117; - further remarks on pay of Vice President, 120, 122; - motion on the pay of members of Congress, 123; - favors discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses, 125; - opposes a Home Department, 128; - on amount of pay of members, 130; - farther remarks, 132, 133; - on the manner of giving instructions to Representatives, 143; - on the location of a seat of Government, 150; - further remarks, 154; - on the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 183; - opposed to indiscriminate admission of foreigners, 188; - on the importance of prompt action relative to the public debt, 199; - on the immediate second reading of the Quaker Memorial, 203; - on discrimination of public creditors, 211; - on memorial of officers of navy, 241; - on price of public lands, 261; - further remarks, 262; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 267; - on excise bill, 265; - on officers, 271; - speech on the Bank of the United States, 282; - on resignation of William Pinkney, 329; - on the electoral college, 333; - on vacancy in the office of President, 335; - on official conduct of Secretary of Treasury, 426, 429; - on non-intercourse with Great Britain, 493; - on merits of indemnity resolution, and on reference, 504; - on the President's speech, 532, 539; - on indemnification sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 547, 553; - on amending naturalization laws, 556, 557, 565; - on intruders on Indian lands, 585; - on the answer to the President's speech, 607; - on the support of existing establishments, 626; - on a stenographer for the House, 630; - on a salary for members of Congress, 636; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 656; - on the admission of Tennessee, 755. - -SEENY, JOSHUA, Representative from Maryland, 27, 175, 255, 315; - appointed on committee to draft bill on tonnage duties, 57; - urges decision relative to duty on molasses, 69; - presents the offer of ten miles square by Maryland for a seat of Government - of United States, 81; - on the compensation of Vice President, 122; - opposes discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses, 125; - approves of the Susquehanna region for a seat of Government, 161; - on constitutionality of memorial for the abolition of slavery, 203; - on discrimination among the public creditors, 226; - on memorial of officers of navy, 240; - on a seat of Government, 244; - on answer to President's message, 258; - on the election of Mercer, 328; - further remarks, 329. - -_Senate_, members present at first meeting, 9; - adjournment from day to day for want of a quorum, 9; - session with closed doors until 1794, _note_, 9; - no publication of debates of, _note_, 9; - receives the House on the inauguration of Washington, 12; - resolution of respecting titles of President and Vice President, 14; - do. division in three classes, 14; - first executive session, 15; - confirmed the appointment of collectors, naval officers, and surveyors, 16; - mode of communication with the President, 16; - report on, 17; - do. resolution on, 17; - President consults with, _note_, 17; - wait upon the President and deliver their answer to the inaugural address, - 18; - on ratification of treaties with Indian tribes, &c., report of committee on, - 20; - conference with the House on the impost bill, 113; - results of, 113; - and House meet together to receive President's message, 168; - address of to the President, 169; - manner of presentation, 170; - when the term of office of members commenced, 171; - answer to the President's address, 253; - notice of letter of French King, 313; - answer to President's message, 313; - resolutions respecting public proceedings, 384; - special session of, 386; - answer to President's address, 383; - answer to the President's message, 444; - answer to President's message, 523; - executive journal of, 524; - answer to President's address to 1st session, 4th Congress, 594. - -_Sequestration of British debts._--_See Great Britain._ - -SEVIER, JOHN, Representative from North Carolina, 260. - -SHERBURNE, JOHN S., Representative from New Hampshire, 455, 527, 604; - on a stenographer to the House, 630. - -SHERBURNE, UPTON, Representative from Maryland, 317. - -SHERMAN, ROGER, Representative from Connecticut, 21, 175, 255; - views on the proposition to lay duties on Madeira wine, 31; - on oaths of State officers, 53; - on necessity of impost duties, 61, 65; - on committee of conference respecting title of President, 68; - opposed to embracing African slaves in a bill for duties on goods, &c., 73; - further remarks, 74; - on limiting the period of the impost bill, 80; - further remarks, 84; - on naturalization of pauper emigrants, 84; - on admission of Rhode Island, 101; - on the removal of officers by a general law, 108; - on compensation of Vice President, 121; - offers a resolution respecting the form of amendment of the constitution, - 133; - remarks, 136, 137; - do. _note_, 137; - on the amendment to the constitution relative to the freedom of conscience, - 137; - on the right of instruction, 139; - on the place for a seat of Government, 159, 166; - on report of Secretary of the Treasury, 183; - on committee on Pennsylvania memorial, 209; - on memorial of officers of the navy, 240; - further remarks, 240; - on a seat of Government, 242; - further remarks, 248; - on answer to President's message, 257; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 267, 269; - on excise bill, 265; - further remarks, 270, 272; - on the commitment of the bill for a Bank of the United States, 273; - Senator from Connecticut, 309, 380. - -SHORT, WILLIAM, proposed to the Senate as Minister to France, 15; - his fitness considered, 15; - appointment to charge during the absence of the Minister, confirmed, 15. - -SINNICKSON, THOMAS, Representative from New Jersey, 27, 175, 255; - on duty on beer, 34; - opposes a limit to the impost bill, 77; - further remarks, 83; - appointed on a committee to draft a bill relative to the importation of - African slaves, 84. - -SITGREAVES, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 604; - on the admission of Tennessee, 758. - -_Slavery and Slave Trade._--Address of the annual assembly of Friends in - Philadelphia, and one of the society of Friends in New York, against - the continuance of the slave trade, considered, 201; - motion to refer to a committee, 201; - contrary to usual proceeding to commit to-day, 201; - why is its second reading pressed to-day? 201; - reference urged, 201; - no apprehension from commitment at once--constitution secures the rights, - 202; - any measures indicative of an intention to interfere may sink the value of - this kind of property, 202; - men have come here to meddle in a business with which they have nothing to - do, 202; - the memorialists are influenced by motives of benignity, 202; - if the importation was crushed, the value of the slave would be increased - instead of diminished, 202; - if it was abolished through interference of General Government, it would - evince a disposition to total emancipation, and the property be in jeopardy, - 202; - is the whole morality of the United States confined to Quakers? 203; - the petition desires an unconstitutional act, 203; - no foundation for apprehension, 203; - it is proper to commit the petition, 204; - no importance to the question unless members made it so, 204; - the memorialists should be dismissed, 204; - petition laid over, 205; - memorial of Pennsylvania Society for abolition of slavery, 207; - memorial of Friends in Philadelphia read second time, 208; - petition of Friends contains unconstitutional requests, 208; - any thing unconstitutional denied, 208; - it prayed for an unconstitutional measure, and its commitment would sound - alarm, 208; - strictly constitutional, 208; - no difficulty in committing the memorial--committee would understand their - business, 209; - language of the constitution on the importation of slaves, 209; - it prays for the abolition of slavery, 209; - the present is not a time to consider the subject, 209; - the present a proper time to determine the constitutional limits, 209; - no power in the House to grant the prayer, and therefore unnecessary to - commit, 209; - jealousy of Southern States, 210; - the States would never have entered the confederacy if their property had - not been guaranteed to them, 210; - the memorialists do not ask total abolition of the slave trade, but that - Congress will consider if they can exercise justice and mercy, 210; - no tendency in the commitment to break in on the constitution--the object is - worthy of consideration, 211; - the interference of Congress compatible with the constitution, 211; - nothing in the petition like what was complained of, 211; - the petitioners pray Congress to take measures for abolition of slave trade, - 211; - commitment carried, 211; - debate on the report upon the memorial of the people called Quakers, 229; - moved to strike out the first paragraph, 229; - contents of report, 229; - total prohibition not produce difficulties, 229; - particulars which took place in the course of the investigation of the - business, 229; - pernicious consequences likely to flow from interference of Congress, 229; - humane treatment of the slaves, 229; - Quakers enemies of freedom, 229; - warm altercation, 229; - injustice of the measure of interference, 230; - powers of Congress respecting slavery and slave trade, 230; - an indecent attack on the character of certain States, 230; - interference contrary to Quaker principles, 230; - where does the power of manumission reside? 230; - plans of the friends of emancipation, 231; - negroes are inferior race, 231; - slavery is no new thing, 231; - does slavery weaken the Southern States? 231; - is public opinion against slavery? 232; - this squeamishness is very extraordinary, 232; - consequences of emancipation, 233; - if importation prohibited, will that species become extinct? 233; - will the abolition strengthen South Carolina? 233; - does toleration of slavery bring reproach on America? 233; - does slavery vitiate and debase the mind of the owner? 234; - was South Carolina wanting in patriotism? 234; - the cruel mode of transportation, 235; - the clause in the constitution was designed to apply expressly to negro - slaves, 235; - now is the time to declare the sense of Congress, 236; - irregularities of the course of the debate, 236; - Paley on slavery, 236; - the genius of the government in relation to slavery and slave trade, 237; - characters of the signers of the memorials, 237; - character of Franklin, 238; - moved to take up report of Committee of the Whole, 238; - every principle of policy and concern for the dignity of the House and peace - of the country requires it to be dropped, 238; - reasons for taking it up, 238; - ordered that report and memorials be inserted in the journal, 338; - _note_, 239. _See Duties_ on imports, 73. - - _Abolition Petitions._--Petition of Warner Mifflin on negro slavery - considered, 397; - after what has passed, the subject is started again, 397; - if a stop is not put to such proceedings, the Southern States would be - compelled to apply to the General Government for their interference, 397; - moved that the paper be returned to the Clerk, &c., 397; - on the general principle every citizen has a right to petition the - Legislature, 397; - the subject is not properly before the House, 397; - every citizen has a right to petition for a redress of grievances, but the - present paper is mere rant, and concludes with no specific prayer, 397; - if favorably received, it would occasion alarm in the Southern States, 397; - motion agreed to, 397. - - _To prohibit carrying_ on the slave trade, bill considered, 480; - amendments proposed, 480; - ordered to be engrossed, 480. - - _To require foreigners_ to renounce their slaves before admission to - citizenship--motion, 558; - debate thereon, 558; - motion withdrawn, 560; - do. renewed, 566; - do. vote on, 566. - -_Slaves, African._--Duty on importation, proposed, 73; - debated, 73; - deported, of the Revolution, 525; - importation of, _see Duties_ on imports. - -SMILIE, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 455, 528; - on the pay of soldiers, 459; - on the relief of the French emigrants, 474; - on the preparations for the Algerine War, 478; - against increase of the army, 515; - on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 568. - -SMITH, ISAAC, Representative from New Jersey, 604; - on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 675. - -SMITH, ISRAEL, Representative from Vermont, 317, 388, 455, 527, 604. - -SMITH, JEREMIAH, Representative from New Hampshire, 315, 388, 455, - 527, 604; - on election of President, 334. - -SMITH, NATHANIEL, Representative from Connecticut, 609. - -SMITH, SAMUEL, Representative from Maryland, 455, 555, 605; - on the reception of the French emigrants from St. Domingo, 462; - do. on the relief of do., 474; - on the commerce of the United States, 473; - on the Algerine War, 476; - on the sequestration of British debts, 483; - on the renunciation of nobility for citizenship, 562; - on establishing Indian trading houses, 639; - on the execution of the British treaty, 732; - on the army establishment, 760. - -SMITH, WILLIAM, Representative from Maryland, 21, 175, 255; - opposes high duties, 33; - appointed on Committee of Supplies, 46; - opposes law of tonnage duties, 54; - on the site for the seat of Government, 166. - -SMITH, WILLIAM, Representative from South Carolina, 27, 175, 255, - 315, 388, 455, 527, 604; - his eligibility, 33; - opposes duty on salt, as it will lead to dissatisfaction, 39; - opposes present consideration of duty on African slaves, 73; - favors limiting the period of impost bill, 79; - on power of President to remove Secretary of State, 86; - remarks on diseligibility, 94; - on the President's power of removal, 102; - on the compensation of Vice President, 122; - on the mode of amending the constitution, 134; - further remarks, 136; - on the obligation of instructions, 139; - on the constitutional requirement for a seat of Government, 159; - reports an answer to the President's speech, 178; - on the propriety of restraints to naturalization, 186; - further remarks, 188; - offers resolutions on public credit, 190; - benefits of a funded debt, 191; - fund or pay, 200; - opposes reception of the Quaker memorial, 203; - unnecessary to commit Pennsylvania memorial, 209; - further remarks, 211, 230; - discrimination of public creditors, 214; - on answer to President's message, 257; - further remarks, 257, 258; - on a seat of Government, 248; - offers resolution relative to eulogium of Dr. Franklin, 259; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 267, 269; - on the commitment of the bill for a Bank of the United States, 272; - speech on the bank, 291; - further, 296; - is a resignation a constitutional vacancy? 329; - on emblems on American coins, 371; - on discharging the committee on defeat of St. Clair, 393; - on reduction of the army, 400; - reports a bill to regulate the claims of invalid pensions, 406; - reports mode of examining votes for President, &c., 417; - on reference to Committee of the Whole the resolutions relative to the - official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 418; - on official conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, 422; - on the result of the votes on, 439; - on the commerce of the United States, 464; - on the propriety of sequestering the British debts, 485; - in favor of continuing the embargo, 499, 502; - urges duties on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, 507, 509; - on the delegate south of the Ohio, 529; - on the President's speech, 534; - on thanks to General Wayne, 542, 543; - on damages by Pennsylvania insurgents, 547; - on the renunciation of titles for citizenship, 563, 565; - on reference of the letter of the Secretary of War, 567; - on the reduction of salaries, 573; - on the right to Indian lands within a State, 577; - on the attempt at bribery by Robert Randall, 609; - on the Randall bribery case, 614; - on the resolution relative to bribery, 621; - on the support of existing establishments, 625; - on call for papers relative to British treaty, 640; - on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 651; - on the admission of Tennessee, 756; - on the military and naval appropriation, 764, 765, 766. - -_Snuff_, duty fixed, 41. - -_Spirits_, all other, duty on, 113. - -SPRIGG, THOMAS, Representative from Maryland, 458, 566. - -_South Carolina_, vote for President, 10, 385. - -STANTON, JOSEPH, Jr., Senator from Rhode Island, 254, 309, 383. - -_State Department_, bill to establish, considered, 15; - Secretary of, called before the Senate to give explanations, 16; - practice now superseded, _note_, 16. _See_ _Executive - Department_. - -_State, Secretary of_, mode of appointment, 86; - how removed, debate on, 86. - -ST. CLAIR, GENERAL, defeat of, considered, 390; - resolution requiring the attendance of the Secretary of the Treasury and the - Secretary of War in the House, to furnish information needed for an - investigation of the causes of St. Clair's defeat, 390; - moved to strike out so much as requires the attendance of the Secretaries, -390; - resolution improper--the Secretaries are not impeached, 391; - importance of the information they can give, 391; - the information had better be in writing, 391; - the measure would introduce a bad precedent, 391; - a thorough investigation, highly important, 391; - this mode the best possible, 391; - not necessary in the present state of the business, 391; - the information must be had, 391; - no advantage to arise from adopting the resolution, 391; - now is not the proper time to call for information, 392; - remarks on the report, 392; - importance of the investigation, a million dollars involved, 392; - peculiar position of the Secretaries, 392; - both implicated in the failure of the expedition, 392; - resolution lost, 393; - motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole, 393; - the only proper course is to consider the report, 393; - report perfectly satisfactory, 393; - what is the situation of those implicated in the failure? 394; - no disposition to smother inquiry, 394; - the House can get through the subject in a shorter time than a committee, - 394; - shall the House or a select committee establish the facts, 394; - effects of finding some of the officers culpable by either, 394; - uniform practice of the House to recommit, 394; - Secretaries attended only once on the committee, and were anxious to leave, - 395; - in the case of the contested election the House reserved the right of - establishing the facts, 395; - other points considered, 395; - recommitment agreed to, 395. - -_Steel, Unwrought_, duty on, proposed, 35; - adopted, 36. - -STEELE, JOHN, Representative from North Carolina, 315, 388; - on ratio of Representation, 322; - on discharging committee in case of St. Clair, 395; - on petition of Warner Mifflin on negro slavery, 397; - on the reduction of the army, 398; - further remarks, 403, 407, 411. - -STERRETT, SAMUEL, Representative from Maryland, 315, 410. - -_Stenographer to the House_, debate on, 629; - object to find a person who would satisfy the House and the public, 630; - other considerations urged, 631, 632. - -STONE, MICHAEL JENIFER, Representative from Maryland, 102, 175; - on the compensation of the President, 117; - further remarks on amount, 119; - do. Vice President, 122; - opposes discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses, 126; - on the mode of amending the constitution, 135; - further remarks, 135; - opposes the amendment of constitution relative to the right of instruction, - 141; - on the location of a seat of Government, 152; - do. on Harrisburg as a seat, 153; - further remarks, 166; - on the powers of Congress and rights of the States respecting naturalized - citizens, 188; - thinks interference with the importation of African slaves will tend to - depreciate their value, 202; - on discrimination among the public creditors, 221; - on memorial of officers of navy, 240; - on a seat of Government, 243; - on price of public lands, 261; - further remarks, 262; - on excise bill, 263; - further remarks, 267, 271; - speech on the Bank of the United States, 292. - -_St. Paul's Chapel_, service at, upon the inauguration of Washington, 12. - -STRONG, CALEB, Senator from Massachusetts, 9, 168, 309, 380, 445, - 523, 591; - on committee on rules of first Congress, 10; - on manner of electing chaplains, 10; - on rules of business, 10; - appointed on Judiciary Committee, first Congress, 19; - on committee to wait on Vice President, 11; - on the resolution relative to the presentation of the French flag, 598. - -STURGES, JONATHAN, Representative from Connecticut, 21, 175, 255, - 315, 388. - -_Sugars_, duty on, 33. - -SUMTER, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 175, 320, 388; - on the location of a seat of Government, 151; - opposition to bill organizing State Department, 108; - on the petition of Catharine Greene, 338, 341. - -SWANWICK, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 604; - on establishing Indian trading houses, 625, 634; - on a stenographer for the House, 629, 631; - on rights of the House relative to treaties, 642; - on the execution of the British treaty, 707; - on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 751. - -SWIFT, ZEPHANIAH, Representative from Connecticut, 457, 527, 604; - on conducting the Algerine war, 478; - on the legality of sequestering the British debts, 491; - on the constitutionality of admitting a territorial delegate, 528, 530; - on indemnification to sufferers by Pennsylvania insurgents, 547, 548, 552; - on establishing Indian trading houses, 624; - on the pay of the Speaker, 638, 639; - on the resolutions relative to the refusal of the President to furnish - papers on the British treaty, 701. - -SYLVESTER, PETER, Representative from New York, 43, 175, 255, 315, - 389; - on oaths of State officers, 52; - favors limitation of impost bill, 83; - on the impeachment clause of the constitution, 88; - on Pennsylvania memorial, 209. - - -T - -TALBOT, SILAS, Representative from New York, 455. - -_Tanners of Newark, N. J._, petition of, 360; - referred to committee, 364; - do. of New York, 370. - -TATOM, ABSALOM, Representative from North Carolina, 604. - -TAYLOR, JOHN, Senator from Virginia, 445; - do. resigned, 524. - -TAZEWELL, HENRY, Senator from Virginia, 524, 594; - on answer to President's speech, 596; - on resolutions relative to presentation of French flag, 600. - -_Teas_, duty on, considered, 32; - proposed duty on, 41; - debated, 41; - duty fixed, 42. - -TELFAIR, EDWARD, votes for, as Vice President, in 1789, 10. - -_Tennessee_, bill for laying out, before the Senate, 601. - -_Tennessee, Admission of_, report relative to territory south of the Ohio - River considered, 754; - the people inhabiting any territory of the United States, cannot of their - mere will and pleasure, and without the consent of Congress, erect themselves - into a separate and independent State, 754; - a law might be passed now to provide for it, 754; - no reason for objecting to receive those people as a State, 755; - the State Government is already organized and in operation, 755; - statement of proceeding in Tennessee, 755; - under the ordinance they had a clear right to be admitted, for they had the - population required, 755; - one State preferable to two, 755; - the Government is Republican, and the population adequate to admit the State - at once, 756; - course of proceeding which should have been taken, 756; - terms of the compact considered, 757; - constructions of the compact, 758; - right claimed for the people, 759; - resolution reported by committee adopted, 759; - moved that some law should be passed by Congress recognizing the territory - as a State before they were admitted into the Union--negatived, 759. - -_Territories._--_See Delegate from Territories._ - -THATCHER, GEORGE, Representative from Massachusetts, 21, 175, 255, - 315, 388, 455, 527, 604; - on duty on molasses, 29; - do. on salt beef, 34; - on the flag of the Union, 461; - on the Randall bribery case, 615. - -THOMAS, RICHARD, Representative from Pennsylvania, 604. - -THOMPSON, CHARLES, appointed by the Senate to notify Washington of - his election, 10; - writes to the Senate respecting his notification of Washington, 11. - -THOMPSON, MARK, Representative from New Jersey, 604. - -_Title of President and Vice President_, 11; - House committee thereon, 12; - report of same made, 12; - message from the House thereon, 13; - committee of conference appointed by Senate, 13; - consideration of original report postponed, 14; - disagreement of committee of conference, 14; - resolution of the Senate respecting the same, 14; - report of House committee thereon, 47; - message from Senate on, 58; - message from Senate--debate thereon, 65; - debate on resolution against a committee of conference with the Senate on - titles of President and Vice President, 65; - constitution prescribes the power of the House respecting titles, 66; - a committee of conference should not be appointed because it is a subject - which the House has no right to consider, 66; - the House agreed no title should be conferred, and a joint committee so - reported, but the Senate resolved upon a title, and ask our concurrence, 66; - excite alarm among those who fear that the constitution is hostile to - popular liberty, 66; - to countenance such a measure would be an indignity to the House, 66; - conference unnecessary, 67; - a respect due to the Senate, 67; - titles harmless, 67; - add no power, 67; - they diminish the true dignity and importance of a Republic, 67; - a committee of conference very proper, 67; - a committee unnecessary, 67; - umbrage should not be given to the Senate, 67; - no purpose secured by a committee, 67; - subject better be dropped, 68; - the proposition of a title is trifling with the dignity of the Government, - 68; - a committee of conference could be appointed without seeming to countenance - the measure, 68; - after having adopted the report of the committee it would derogate from - their dignity to rescind a unanimous resolution, 68; - committee appointed, 69. - -_Tobacco_, manufactured, duty fixed, 41. - -_Tonnage Duties_, proposed, 23; - debate thereon, 48, 53; - fixed, 57; - method of discussing the subject, _note_, 57. _See_ _Duties_ - on Tonnage. - -TRACY, URIAH, Representative from Connecticut, 455, 527, 604; - on duties on tobacco and sugar, 510; - on the President's speech, 533; - on exclusion of titled foreigners from citizenship, 558, 564; - on reference of letter of Secretary of War, 569; - on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 672. - -_Treasury Department._--_See Executive Departments._ - -_Treasury, Report of Secretary of._--Motion that the Secretary of the - Treasury's report be in writing, 177; - if he reports in person he can answer inquiries, 177; - propriety doubted, 177; - if the report is written it will be better understood, 177; - the importance and extent of the subject is such it should be in writing, - 177; - motion carried, 177; - report under consideration, 182; - postponement moved, 182; - it embraces two important objects: first, that all idea of discrimination - among the public creditors as original holders and transferees, ought to be - done away; - second, the assumption of the State debts by the General Government, 182; - the States should be consulted, 182; - a considerable postponement required, 182; - speculation is rife--if postponed too long fluctuations will be still - greater, 182; - postponed until North Carolina enters the Union, 183; - Congress possess all the information necessary to act on the measure, 183; - speculation has existed since the securities were first issued, 183; - the subject of the State debts should not be decided until the sense of the - Legislatures is known, 183; - the postponement should be long enough to enable members to enter on the - task with understanding, and the spirit of speculation should be counteracted - at the earliest practicable period, 183; - impossible to suppress speculation, 183; - the policy of speculation, 184; - the speculation arisen since the report was denounced, 184; - objects of the report submitted in the form of independent resolutions, 190; - assumption of State debts considered, 191; - doubtful if a permanent funded debt is beneficial or not, 191; - history of funded debts, 191; - a precedent that will bring ruin, 191; - debts of the States unknown, 192; - the funding will occasion enormous taxes for interest, 192; - all that can be done is to provide funds for the gradual extinction, 192; - funding a small debt is beneficial, 192; - we have a debt already and some funds must be appropriated for payment of - interest, 192; - the foreign and domestic debt carry very material distinctions, 193; - the domestic securities should be considered in a depreciated state, 193; - an equivalent was not received for them in hard cash like the foreign debt, - 193; - domestic debt should be liquidated at its real value, 193; - terms proposed by the Secretary, 193; - the Government is in a very different situation with respect to foreign and - domestic creditors, 194; - we are not judges of the claims of our creditors, but parties to the - contract, 194; - if we are parties, what would be the decision before a court of justice, - 194; - the French loans, 195; - no distinction between foreign and domestic creditors, 195; - the face of the paper is our guide, the demand is not to be lessened, 195; - if it is intended to reduce either, the principles on which such a measure - is founded should be considered, 195; - nature of the public contract, 196; - the same argument might be applied to paying the Continental debts at their - nominal value, 196; - the present Government should pay the debts of the United States, but as the - domestic part has been contracted in depreciated notes, less than six per - cent. interest should be paid on it, 196; - if the Government is one party and the individual the other, who is the - judge? 197; - can two parties exist in a well organized government to dispute about - property and have no judge? 197; - is not the want of consideration a good plea? 197; - we stand in the same condition as the late Congress, who are admitted to be - parties, 197; - the Government should be at liberty to ascertain the amount of the debts - assumed as the motion contemplates, 197; - discrimination and liquidation the two great points involved, 198; - manner in which the debt was contracted, 198; - if the certificates, at the time they were issued, were taken for only a - small part of their face, they should not now be raised to the full amount, - 198; - debts of the United States of four kinds, 199; - their character, 199; - the subject should be decided at this time, 199; - a discrimination of some kind necessary, 200; - three classes of creditors, 200; - the obligations of each considered, 200. - - _To discriminate_ between original creditors and present holders, &c., - moved, 205; - extent and form in which the debt exists, 205; - the United States owes the value they have received, and which they - acknowledge, 205; - to whom is payment really due? 205; - four classes of creditors, 205; - the principles that govern the decision of their respective pretensions - considered, 205, 206; - motion to amend original proposition, 207; - the debt is still due, and if the owner has transferred it shall we disown - his act? 207; - the nature of contracts, 211; - their transferability, 212; - the property of the certificates is now vested in the transferees, 212; - if they are now divested by Government, it is an _ex post facto_ law, - 212; - the proposed discrimination, 212; - effects of, 213; - this doctrine repugnant to the interests and prosperity of the Union, 213; - the States are restrained from passing laws violating contracts, 213; - public justice requires a performance of contracts, 213; - the new paper given might be subject to another liquidation on the same - principle, 214; - the proposition is unjust, impolitic, and impracticable, 214; - strict justice the plain line of conduct, 215; - other objections, 215; - the debt is the price of our liberties, and cannot be diminished a farthing, - but the measure proposed does diminish it, 215; - the obligation of the debt is not denied, the difficulty is how it shall be - discharged, 216; - the justice of discrimination, 216; - the army repudiate discrimination, 217; - no Legislature should interfere with a contract--but it does not appear that - the transaction between the original holders and the purchasers of - certificates was a fair one, 217; - other points in favor of the measure, 218; - justice or legality of the measure--its practicability or policy and - consequences, 219; - the claim of the soldier just, 219; - state of public opinion, 220; - seven-eighths of the debt has not been disposed of from necessity, 220; - inequitability of the measure not shown, 221; - how far will this measure operate as a precedent? 221; - a review of the grounds upon which the proposition has been combated, 223; - the United States cannot pay in full original creditors or assignees, what - course is just and expedient? 226; - all parties understood there would be no discrimination in certificates - transferable, 227; - other objections examined, 227; - the ability of the Government and the claims of assignees, 228; - motion lost, 228; - _note_, 228, 250. - -_Official Conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury_, considered, 418; - moved that nine resolutions on the subject be referred to the Committee of - the Whole, 418; - discussion of them unnecessary and unwarranted, 418; - much time be wasted on them, 419; - objections to the first resolution, 419; - do. second do., 419; - do. third do. 419; - the last one objectionable, for the preceding ones determine the guilt and - the last directs the President to remove the Secretary, 419; - too short time remaining to consider the resolutions, 420; - the abstract propositions should be decided first, the others are - unwarranted by facts, 420; - most unheard of course against a party accused, 420; - no opportunity offered for defence, 420; - the first resolution of great importance, 420; - the Secretary differs from others in his opinion respecting his powers and - the constitutional obligation respecting the acts of appropriation, 420; - shall the Secretary be bound by our acts of appropriation or not? 421; - the first resolution is no part of the others, but should be determined, - 421; - all referred excepting the first, second, and ninth resolutions, 421; - the third resolution, charging that the Secretary had violated the law by - applying a certain portion of the principal borrowed to the payment of - interest falling due on the principal, which was not authorized, and by - drawing part of the same moneys into the United States without the - instructions of the President, considered, 421; - what regards the right of drawing money into the country, 421; - the case examined 422; - the charges of mismanagement so long before the public have now assumed - shape, 422; - change in the tone of the charges since the session commenced, 422; - no self-interested pecuniary considerations imputed to the Secretary, 423; - the charge consists of two items, 423; each - examined in detail, 423. - - No greatness of character known in the Executive Departments, 424; - was the money appropriated to special and distinct purposes, and did the - Secretary apply the money to other uses than the law directed? 424; - both points considered, 424; - if a responsible officer has violated the laws he should be called to - account, 425; - the testimony compared with the facts, 425; can any necessity be shown for - deviations from positive law? 426; - attempt to show that the Legislature were not ignorant of the drafts of the - Secretary, 426; - money borrowed in Europe was economically applied to paying interest there, - 426; - the inquiry is, whether a debt was paid out of this or that fund, 426; - the whole business reviewed, 426; - even if the Secretary made the drafts without the instructions of the - President, it is not probably reprehensible, 426; - the act was not a financial operation to avoid the necessity of drawing and - remitting, 427; - the interest was not paid out of the principal of the loan, 427; - the President is the principal and the Secretary the agent, 427; - impossible to account for the conduct of the Secretary, 427; - to judge of his conduct we must consider his duties, and whether a necessity - existed to justify his drawing, 427; - if the Secretary has paid what was due, what, then, is the complaint, 428; - no law has been violated, nor any rule of propriety departed from, 428; - the drafts were made agreeably to the instructions of the President, 429; - did the authority from the President and his subsequent instructions - authorize the Secretary to consolidate the loans? if so, he acted legally, - 429; - both charges examined, 430; - the reports of the committee, 481; - the questions now are questions of fact, 431; - these facts are too clearly supported by the reports of the Secretary and - accompanying documents to be denied or controverted, 431; - this position investigated, 431; - can the Executive, without special permission, apply the excess of one fund - to the deficiency of another? 433; - the drawing money without the instructions of the President established by - the documents, 433; - both points rest on the most solid proofs, 434; - on the necessity of sometimes departing from the strictness of legal - appropriations, 434; - the authority of the Secretary in the special case of loans must be derived - from the President, 435; - the recent drafts, 435. - - No proof to support the charges, 436; - if there had been, there is nothing criminal in them, 436; - insufficient reports of the Secretary, 437; - third resolution disagreed to, 438; - fourth resolution disagreed to, 438; - fifth resolution disagreed to, 438; - sixth resolution disagreed to, 438; - seventh resolution disagreed to, 439; - eighth resolution disagreed to, 439; - after such a large vote the Secretary cannot be criminated, 439; - review of the arguments against the Secretary, 439. - -_Treaty with Great Britain._--Ratification of, 525; - _note_, 525, 639; - resolution calling for papers relative to the treaty with Great Britain, - 640; - reasons for calling for the papers, 640; - opposed for want of a declared object within cognizance of the House, and - because it was the groundwork of the dangerous doctrine that the House had a - right to adjudge, adopt, or to reject treaties generally, 640; - no other source of information, 640; - constitutional questions likely to arise in course of debate, 640; - does the general power of making treaties supersede the powers of the House - and leave it only an executive and ministerial instrumental agency? 641; - no propriety in the resolution, and no question of the constitutionality of - the treaty, 641; - House has a right to inquire into the conduct of the officers concerned, - 641; - preceding arguments reviewed, 641; - is the power of the President and Senate as to treaties complete? 641; - power of control of English House of Commons, 642; - true meaning of the power of appropriation in the constitution, 642; - a discretion exists in the House, 642; - legislative power completely vested in Congress--to pass laws discretion is - implied--the House must judge when it is required to act, 642; - words of the constitution respecting treaties, 643; - papers unnecessary, and to call for them is an unconstitutional and improper - interference with the Executive Department, 643; - the House has a _right_ to ask for the papers, because their - co-operation and sanction was necessary to carry the treaty into effect--because - they had full discretion to give or refuse that co-operation, and must be - guided in the exercise of that discretion by the merits and expediency of the - treaty, 644; - what treaties unconstitutional, 644; - consequences of the treaty power being unlimited and undefined, 645; - House has a check on treaty-making power, 645; - authorities referred to, 645; - propriety of the resolution, 647; - what powers has the constitution given, and to what departments have they - been distributed? 647; - view of legislative and treaty-making powers, 648; - how is the will of the people expressed in the constitution to be - understood? 648; - different constructions of the constitution, 649; - extent of the treaty-making power in relation to the objects specially and - expressly submitted to the legislative power of Congress, 650; - treaty power solely delegated to the President and Senate, 651; - practice of Congress, 652; - there are cases in which the House has not the right of withholding - appropriations, 652; - is there any provision in the constitution by which the House can check the - treaty-making power, or question the merits of treaties under any - circumstances? 653; - review of arguments, 654; - must resort to the constitution to know the extent and limits of our power, - 657; - arguments against the exclusive treaty-making power considered, 658; - this doctrine is inconsistent with the constitution and the law of nations, - 659; - the state of the question, 660; - words of the constitution, 660; - have we a right to exercise our judgment on the treaty? is the question, - 661; - depends on a rational construction of the fundamental principles of - government, as drawn from the histories of nations, 661; - construction of the constitution, 662; - the treaty is now the law of the land, and no act of Congress is or can be - necessary to make it so, 662; - no right to require papers where there is no obligation to obey, 664; - different kinds of treaties, 664; - power given to Congress to regulate commerce considered, 665; - if these sentiments prevail, the small States would be deprived of one of - their most essential rights, 666; - when treaties contain stipulations bearing a relation to the specific power - vested in the Legislature, the House has a right to take cognizance of it, as - it is proved by three considerations, 666; - these examined, 667; - the express words of the constitution will not support either position - without a liberty of construction--what construction is most agreeable to the - general principles of the constitution? 668; - exposition of the constitution and the position of the opposition, 660; - the right to call for papers sanctioned by the uniform practice of the - House, 670; - practice in cases of former treaties, 671; - _note_, 671; - view of the constitutional rights of the House, 671; - these rights considered in two points of view, 672; - case of the proclamation of neutrality, 674; - the construction of the constitution advanced, 674; - explanation of the original resolution, 675; - does the treaty operate by way of obligation? 676; - is it paramount to a law, and can it repeal law, although itself cannot be - acted upon by the legislative power? 677; - this question considered, 677; - objections to the power of the House considered, 678; - precedents examined relative to a call for papers, 681; - objections urged by the advocates of the power of the House considered, 682, - 683; - authority of the United States examined, 685; - the House cannot legislate without information, 686; - what does the constitution say? 686; - if the doctrines now urged prevail, they will make inroads on the - constitution, 687; - the propriety of calling for papers if the Legislature have no part in - making treaties, 687; - points of the subjects reviewed, 688; - duty to look into every treaty, 690; - what was the constitution of the United States? 690; - resolution as offered, 692; - passed, 692; note, 692. - -_Message of the President declining_ to send papers, 693; - _note_, 693; - debate on reference of the answer, 694, 695; - answer referred to Committee of the Whole, 696; - resolutions introduced relative to the class of treaties over which the - House claims a right of judgment, and limits it to those which involve a - matter which has been specially granted to Congress, 696; - important occasion when two of the constituted authorities of the Government - interpret differently the extent of their respective powers? 696; message - considered, 697; - it related to two points, the application for the papers and the - constitutional rights of Congress and of the House of Representatives on the - subject of treaties, 697; - these points examined, 698, 699, 700, 701; - resolutions adopted, 702; - _note_, 702. - -_Execution of the Treaty_, considered, 702; - resolution to carry it into effect, 702; - the proposition must be determined by the fact of whether the treaty was a - good one, or whether there were extraneous reasons for putting it in force, - 703; - the merits of the treaty considered as it relates to the execution of the - treaty of 1783, as it determines the several points in the law of nations, and - as it respects the commerce between the two nations, 703, 704, 705; - extraneous circumstances--the treaty continues two years--consequences of - not carrying it into effect, 706; - principles of the treaty considered, 707; - merits of the treaty, 707; - admission to British ports, 707; - article respecting British debts, 707; - sequestration of debts, 707; - articles of a temporary nature considered, 709; - Burke on the commerce of the American colonies, 710; - points which pressed themselves on the negotiation and demanded provision, - 711, 712; - the contents of the treaty examined, 714, 715, 716, 717; - the commercial part of the treaty examined, 718; - want of reciprocity in the instrument, 720; - view of the origin of the treaty--party dissensions which then prevailed, - 720; - critical posture of our affairs, &c., considered, 720, 721; - objected against the treaty that a claim for negroes and other property - taken at New York had been overlooked, 722; - has not the ownership of the property changed under the law of nations? 722; - correspondence of the commissioners, 723, 724; - consequences if the treaty is rejected, 725; - treaty is unconstitutional and pernicious, 726; - if the treaty is executed we admit the ground taken by the Executive, 728; - merits of the treaty, 729; - prejudice against the treaty in the public mind, 729; - the permanent and the temporary part of the treaty considered, 730; - the only question is, whether they would or would not appropriate money to - carry the treaty into effect, 730; - objections to the treaty considered, 731; - the negotiation was advisable, and the only means of avoiding war, 734; - consequences of rejecting the treaty, 734; - three objects embraced in the treaty, 735; - on the expediency of carrying the treaty into effect, 736, 737; - free bottoms make free goods, 737; - effects of rejecting the treaty, 738, 739; - treaty of 1783, 741; - threats of war if treaty rejected, 742; - constitutional rights of the House to be looked at with candor, 744; - will we observe the treaty or break it? is the only question, 745; - consequences of its rejection, 746, 747; - the good and prosperity of the people should be the primary object, 748; - notwithstanding the objections to the treaty the appropriations ought to be - granted, 749; - resolution carried in committee by vote of the Chairman, 750. - - Resolution offered in the House expressive of its opinion of the treaty, - 751; - debate on its propriety, 751; - amendment lost--resolutions for executing the treaty passed, 753; - _note_, 754. - -TREDWELL, THOMAS, Representative from New York, 315, 388, 457, 528. - -TRUMBULL, JONATHAN, Representative from Connecticut, 21, 175, 255, -315, 388, 455, 527; - on a committee to report a bill regulating oaths, 22; - elected Speaker, 315; - speech on taking the chair, 315; - moves an amendment to the bill on the slave trade, 480; - Senator from Connecticut, 591. - -TUCKER, THOMAS TUDOR, Representative from South Carolina, 21, 175, - 255, 315, 388; - takes part in the debates on laying duties on imports, 25; - opposes duty on salt beef, 34; - do. on candles, 34; - on duty on unwrought steel, 35; - opposes duty on nails, 38; - opposes duty on salt as unequal, 39; - on high duties, 44; - favors low tonnage duties, 56; - advocates moderate duties on imports, 57, 58; - opposes the appointment of committee of conference in reference to title of -President, 66; - favors reduction of duty on molasses, if those on other articles are - reduced, 69; - repels insinuation of a bargain, 69; - opposes the motion to lay a duty on African slaves, 74; - gives reason for his vote on limitation of the impost bill, 83; - on the Treasury Department, 109; - on compensation of President, 117; - further remarks on same, 119; - on the difficulty of amending the constitution, 144; - on the principles which should control the selection of a seat of -Government, 147; - further remarks, 152; - on a short period of residence for naturalization, 185; - further remarks, 187, 190; - favors discrimination among the public creditors, 200; - urges the dismission of the Quaker memorial, 205; - on the commitment of the bill for a Bank of the United States, 273. - -TURNER, GEORGE, memorial of, 335. - - -V - -VAN ALLEN, JOHN E., Representative from New York, 455, 527, 604. - -VAN CORTLANDT, PHILIP, Representative from New York, 455, 527, 604. - -VAN GAASBECK, PETER, Representative from New York, 458, 528. - -VAN RENSSELAER, JEREMIAH, Representative from New York, 58. - -VAN RENSSELAER, STEPHEN, Representative from New York, 175, 260. - -VARNUM, JOSEPH B., Representative from Massachusetts, 204; - on the pay of the Speaker, 639. - -VENABLE, ABRAHAM, Representative from Virginia, 388, 455, 528, 604; - on the attendance of the Secretary of War, 390, on the President's speech, - 538; - on the Pennsylvania insurgents, 552; - on amending naturalization laws, 556; - on the resolutions relative to intruders on Indian lands, 584, 586; - on the military and naval appropriation, 764; - on the sense of the House relative to the British treaty, 752. - -_Vermont_--Vote for President in 1793, 385. - -_Vessels._--Registering and clearing bills, on, 129. - -_Vice President_, ordered to sign the answer to Washington's inaugural, - in behalf of the Senate, 13; - takes the oath, 15; - compensation of, 17, 120; - fixed, 123; - his term of office, when commenced, 171; - letter to the Mayor of New York, 174; - vote for in 1789, 10; - do. in 1793, 385. - -VINING, JOHN, Representative from Delaware, 51, 175, 259, 315, 442, - 520, 591; - proposes the organization of a Home Department, 85; - further remarks, 86; - on the President's power to remove officers, 87; - moves the organization of a Domestic Department, 94; - on the President's power of removal, 104; - on the compensation of members of Congress, &c., 116; - further remarks, 119, 132; - introduces a resolution for a Home Department, 127; - remarks on, 127; - further remarks, 128; - on the form of amending the constitution, 134; - on the location of a seat of Government, 150; - on the banks of the Delaware for do., 161; - on a seat of Government, 245; - further remarks, 248; - on interference of excise officers in elections, 271; - on the commitment of a bill for a Bank of the United States, 274; - speech on the bank, 305; - on the ratio of representation, 326. - -_Virginia._--Vote for President in 1789, 10, 385; - county lands, report on, 129. - -_Virginia Legislature._--Offers ten miles square to United - States for a seat of Government, 76. - -_Vote_, on limiting the time for the operation of the impost bill, 84; - on the President's power of removal, 90; - on striking out Susquehanna and inserting Potomac for the seat of - Government, 159; - on motion for discrimination among public creditors, 228; - _note_, on do. 288; - on Quaker memorial, 238. - -_Votes, Electoral._--Counted in the presence of Senate and House in 1789, 10; - do. 385. - - -W - -WADSWORTH, JEREMIAH, Representative from Connecticut, 21, 175, 255, - 315, 455, 555; - appointed on committee to draft bill on tonnage duties, 57; - urges reduction of duty on molasses, 70; - on a Board of Treasury or Superintendent of Finance, 92; - on the right of instructions, 144; - on deliberation in fixing the seat of Government, 155; - further remarks, 160; - on discrimination among the public creditors, 220; - on the post office bill, 332; - on the petition of Catharine Greene, 339; - on the reduction of the army, 401; - further remarks, 407, 414; - on the pay of soldiers, 460, 466; - against the embargo laws, 499; - urges increased duty on coal in foreign vessels, 506; - on duties on manufactured tobacco and refined sugar, 509; - on the advance of money to France, 514; - on the rage against nobility, 561; - on defence of the frontiers, 570; - on the trial of intruders upon the Indians, 584; - on the protection of settlers, 587. - -WADSWORTH, PELEG, Representative from Massachusetts, 456, 527, 609. - -WALKER, FRANCIS, Representative from Virginia, 455, 527. - -WALKER, JOHN, appointed Senator by Governor of Virginia, 251. - -WALTON, GEORGE, Senator from Georgia, 591. - -WARD, ARTEMAS, Representative from Massachusetts, 315, 388, 455, 527. - -_War Department.--See Executive Departments._ - -WASHINGTON, GEORGE, elected President in 1789, 10; - votes for as President in 1789, 10; - do. 1793, 385; - proceedings at his inauguration, 12; - do. inaugural address, 12; - reply to the answer of the Senate to the inaugural address, 15; - day of his inauguration, _Note_, 46; - resolution for an equestrian statue, 330; - birthday--motion to adjourn, 638; - considered, 638; - motion lost, 638. - -WATTS, JOHN, Representative from New York, 455, 527. - -WAYNE, ANTHONY, Representative from Georgia, 317; - on the petition of Catharine Greene, 335; - further remarks, 337. - -_Ways and Means_, proposition to appoint a committee, 128. - -_Western Lands.--See Public Lands_. - -WHEATON, JOSEPH, appointed sergeant-at-arms, 315. - -WHITE, ALEXANDER, Representative from Virginia, 21, 175, 255, 315, - 388; - on committee to report a bill regulating oaths, 22; - advocates delay in fixing scale of duties on imports, 23; - further remarks, 25; - on duty on hemp, 37; - opposes duty on salt, 41; - report from Committee of Elections, 41; - presents resolution of Virginia Legislature, offering ten miles square to - United States for seat of Government, 76; - thinks appropriation bills are limited by the constitution, 77; - further remarks, 81; - sustains the power of the President to remove certain officers, 88; - on the power of the President to remove Secretary of State, 102; - further remarks, 105; - opposes discrimination in the pay of members of the two Houses, 124; - on compensation of President, 119; - further remarks, 120; - on compensation of Vice President, 121; - on a Home Department, 127; - on amendments of the Senate to House bill on seat of Government, 165; - on admission of reporters of the press, 180; - on the constitutional power of Congress respecting naturalization, 186; - on discrimination among the public creditors, 217; - on report of committee on Quaker memorial, 229; - on a seat of Government, 242; - further remarks, 248; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 267; - on the meeting of the Electoral College, 333; - moves to strike out of bill all relative to vacancy of President, 334; - on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 351. - -WHITE, Rev. Bishop, elected chaplain of the Senate, 380. - -WHITE, JAMES, delegate from territory south of Ohio River, 528. - -WHITNEY, CHARLES, arrested with Robert Randall, 611; - examination of, 613. - -_Widows and Orphans_, a bill making compensation to certain, considered, 410. - -WILLIAMS, BENJAMIN, Representative from North Carolina, 455, 546; - on a salary for members of Congress, 636; - on post-roads, 637; - on the rights of the House relative to treaties, 680; - on the execution of the British treaty, 720; - on the army establishment, 759. - -WILLIAMS, JOHN, Representative from New York, 604. - -WILLIAMSON, HUGH, Representative from North Carolina, 255, 315, 388; - on answer to President's message, 257; - further remarks, 257; - on selection of land by settlers, 260; - on vacancy in the Presidency, 267; - on the commitment of the bill for a Bank of the United States, 273; - on resignation of William Pinkney, 329; - on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, 357; - on the emblems on American coins, 371; - on the resolution that the Secretary of the Treasury and at War attend the - House, and report relative to defeat of St. Clair, 390; - against attendance of Secretary of War, 392; - on discharging committee on defeat of St. Clair, 394; - on protection of American commerce, 395; - on reduction of the army, 400; - further remarks, 414. - -WILLIS, FRANCIS, Representative from Georgia, 315, 388. - -_Wines_, all other, discrimination opposed, 32; duty on, 32. - -WINGATE, PAINE, Senator from New Hampshire, 9, 168, 251, 309, 380. - -WINN, RICHARD, Representative from South Carolina, 457, 528, 614. - -WINSTON, JOSEPH, Representative from North Carolina, 457, 528. - -_Wool Cards_, duty on, 41; - state of manufacture, 41. - -WYNKOOP, HENRY, Representative from Pennsylvania, 21, 175, 255. - - -Y - -_Yeas and Nays_ on contested election of Wm. Smith, 99; - on the bill organizing the State Department, 108; - on embracing all the proposed amendments of the constitution in one report, - 145; - on fixing the seat of Government on the Potomac, 161; on Wilmington for the - seat of Government, 161; - on Potomac, Susquehanna, or Delaware, instead of east bank of Susquehanna, - 162; - Delaware instead of do., 162; - banks instead of east bank, 162; - on inserting, or Maryland, after "Pennsylvania," 162; - on Wilmington, instead of "city of New York," 163; - on "Philadelphia," instead of "New York," 163; - on proviso of Mr. Gale, 163; - on resolution for the appointment of Commissioners to fix the site for a - seat of Government, 163; - on the bill to establish a seat of Government, 164; - on postponing consideration of amended bill relative to seat of Government, - 166; - on the proviso of Mr. Madison relative to a seat of Government, 167; - in Senate on resolution relative to unfinished business, 171; - in Senate, on bill for non-intercourse with Rhode Island, 172; - on commitment of Pennsylvania memorial, 211; - on Quaker memorial, 238; - on motion to strike out "Potomac," and insert Delaware for seat of - Government, 249; - on motion to strike out "Potomac," and insert Germantown, 249; - to strike out "Potomac," and insert Baltimore, 249; - on the passage of the bill fixing a seat of Government, 249; - on motion to strike out a clause of excise bill, 272; - on its passage, 272; - on the bill for a Bank of the United States, 308; - on the resolution respecting ratio of representation, 328; - on motion to amend by striking out second section of bill for the protection - of the frontiers, 349; - on the bill for the encouragement of the cod fisheries, &c., 369; - on the resolutions relative to the courtesies of France, 370; - on receding from the amendment relative to the stamp of American coins, 373; - on the apportionment bill after it was vetoed, 374; - on its subsequent passage, 377; - on motion to strike out clause of the army reduction bill, 416; - on agreement of the House in said motion, 416; - on the passage of the bill relative to fugitives from justice, 417; - on the third resolution relative to the official conduct of the Secretary of - the Treasury, 438; - on the fourth resolution, &c., 438; - on the fifth resolution, &c., 438; - on the sixth resolution, &c., 438; - on the seventh resolution, 439; - on the question relating to, &c., 440; - on amendment of constitution in the Senate, excluding bank officers from - Congress, 446; - relative to the interest of the United States in the bank, 446; - on Senate resolution relative to open doors, 448; - on the eligibility of Albert Gallatin, 452; on postponing consideration of - the commerce of the United States, 473; - on the bill making preparations for the Algerine war, 482; - on the resolutions of non-intercourse with Great Britain, 498; - on continuing the embargo, 502; - on the reference of the indemnity resolutions to the committee on - sequestration of British debts, 505; - on motion to reject the bill laying duties on tobacco and sugar, 511; - on the bill to augment the army, 511; - on amendment to raise a force for protection of south-west frontiers, 519; - on striking out certain words in the answer to the President's speech, 540; - on the indemnification of the sufferers by the Pennsylvania insurgents, 553; - on the resolution relative to Indian lands in North Carolina, 582; - on resolutions relative to intruders on Indian lands, 589; - in Senate on agreeing to answer of President's speech, 596; - in Senate on resolutions relative to French flag, 601; - in Senate, relative to the admission of Tennessee, 602, 603; - on the resolution relative to the treaty with Great Britain, 692; - on the resolutions relative to the refusal of the President to furnish - papers on the British treaty, 702; - on the resolution expressive of the sense of the House on the British - treaty, 753; - on the resolution of the House relative to the execution of the British - treaty, 753; - _note_, 754; - on the resolution that some law should be passed by Congress recognizing - Tennessee as a State before its admission, 759; - on the claim of Catharine Greene, 762. - - -END OF VOL. I. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] Of this talent, Mr. Gales has lately given a most remarkable -instance, in drawing out from notes which had remained as lost for near -forty years, a most important speech of Mr. Randolph, delivered shortly -before the late war with Great Britain, and in relation to the then -condition of public affairs, both with Great Britain and the Emperor -Napoleon the First. Mr. Gales had taken down the speech: the notes of it -got into the bottom of a trunk, and lay there till a year ago, when Mr. -Gales, searching high and low for matter for the Annals, chanced to find -them; and immediately drew out the full speech with the freshness and -vigor of a morning report of a previous day's debate. - -[2] In the first five years of the existence of the Federal Government, -there was no publication of debates in the Senate, that body having sat -with closed doors, in its legislative as well as in its executive -capacity, until the 20th of February, 1794. Until that time there will -be no Senate debates to be abridged; but the proceedings of the body -were fully kept in journals, and selections from these proceedings will -afford much curious and instructive information to the student of -American political history, as showing the manner in which the founders -of the government put it into operation, their views in relation to -important points, and the changes which the constitution of the Senate -has undergone. - -[3] A list of the Senators and Representatives who composed the First -Congress is inserted at page 20. - -[4] his address being in the nature of an Inaugural, and confined to -general recommendations, only the beginning and the ending, so -characteristic of the father of his country, have been given. - -[5] These entries in relation to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs show -the early method of communicating with the Secretaries, being called -before the Senate to give explanations and bring papers--a method now -superseded by reports. The early Senators lamented the change, believing -the old way to be the best for getting the information that was wanted, -and also the best security against the appointment of incompetent -Secretaries. - -[6] Another instance of the early practice of the government. The -President consults the Senate beforehand upon the negotiation of Indian -treaties, and sends the Secretary at War in person to give the necessary -explanations: this mode of consulting the Senate since so far departed -from that that body has no knowledge of the treaty until sent in for -ratification. - -[7] This message of President Washington is a strong instance of his -deference for the Senate, thus giving up upon its objection the -nomination of a citizen which he knew to be fit and meritorious. It was -also a strong instance of the deference of the Senate to the Senators of -the State interested in the nomination, Col. Fishbourn having been -rejected simply because the Georgia Senators preferred another. - -[8] These proceedings of President Washington and the Senate, in fixing -on the mode of communication between them when treaties were to be -formed, or appointments to be made, was their interpretation of the -clause in the constitution which requires the advice and consent of the -Senate on such occasions. Their interpretation was (according to the -obvious meaning of language) that the advice and consent should be -obtained beforehand; and the practice was in conformity to that -interpretation, as will be seen in the proceedings of the next day, when -the President and Secretary at War attended the Senate, and the -President gave in a statement of facts, which, in his opinion, rendered -treaties with the Southern Indian tribes necessary, and asked the advice -and consent of the Senate upon their formation. These proceedings will -be read with interest by all who study the working of our government, -and observe the changes which its practice has undergone. The change has -been great in the mode of obtaining this advice and consent, and greatly -to the prejudice of the free and independent action of the Senate in -such cases. Instead of consultation and concurrence beforehand, as the -words of the constitution imply, and as the practice under Washington -required (even to the minute provisions of an Indian treaty), the most -important, and even unusual and extraordinary treaties, and with foreign -powers, have come to be negotiated (oftentimes) without even the -knowledge of the Senate, concealed from it until concluded, and then -laid before the body for ratification, as an administration measure--the -ratification to be pressed under all the influences of an executive -measure, and upon all the considerations of inconvenience and danger to -attend the rejection of a measure executively concluded with a foreign -power. Under such circumstances treaties are often ratified, and -appointments often confirmed, under a moral duress of the Senate, the -weight of the executive and the inconveniences of rejection leaving no -chance for the free action of the body. President Polk revived the -Washingtonian mode of consulting the Senate, in the formation of the -Oregon Treaty in 1846, asking the advice of the Senate beforehand on the -point of establishing the boundary line with Great Britain on the -parallel of 49 degrees; whereof the secret as well as the public history -may be seen in the "Thirty Years' View," under the proper year. The -personal attendance of the President and Secretaries being found to be -inconvenient, that part of the mode of communication was dispensed with -in Washington's time. - -[9] The question in relation to North Carolina arose out of the -circumstance that she had not then accepted the Federal Constitution, -and was not at that time a member of the Union. - -[10] North Carolina was not represented in the _first_ Session of this -Congress, not having at that time accepted the Constitution. - -[11] Rhode Island, for the same cause, did not appear till the _third_ -Session. - -[12] Mr. Bland deceased during the second recess of Congress, and was -succeeded at the third Session by William B. Giles. - -[13] See notes to list of Senators. - -[14] Ibid. - -[15] For a list of the Representatives in the first Congress, see p. 20. - -[16] For this list see the Senate Journal. - -[17] This scale of duties, thus offered by the Continental Congress of -1783, and agreed to by the States, after proposing small specific duties -on a few enumerated articles, (wines, spirits, teas, coffee, cocoa, -molasses, sugars and pepper,) proposed an _ad valorem_ duty of five per -centum upon all other goods, computed on the value of the article at the -time and place of importation. - -[18] In bringing forward the measure for imposing impost and tonnage -duties, Mr. Madison proceeded in the approved parliamentary form, of -first discussing and agreeing upon the provisions of the measure, and -then appointing a committee to bring in a bill according to what had -been agreed upon. Long experience had proved that to be the safest mode -of legislation, giving full scope to the whole intelligence of the -House, before the measure had taken a form which it might be difficult -to alter, as is always the case when a committee brings in a detailed -bill, (without previous instructions from the House,) and which, as an -act of a committee, and as a matured plan, (though done by a few,) has -an authority which resists alteration, and renders amendments, at the -instance of a member, most difficult to obtain. This wise and safe -practice, of settling the provisions of a bill beforehand, has been -nearly abandoned by our Congress--to the great prejudice of beneficial -legislation. - -[19] Not additional. The enumerated articles were not to be subject to -the _ad valorem_ duty of five per centum. - -[20] The delegates from that State were gone to meet the Vice-President, -who was expected in town this day. - -[21] The members of the two Houses of Congress began to assemble on the -4th day of March, but a quorum did not appear in the House of -Representatives until the 1st of April, nor in the Senate until the 6th -of that month. The organization of the two Houses necessarily preceded -the inauguration of the President, which took place on the 30th of -April. Some of the ceremonies observed on that occasion, and for some -time afterwards, have since been discontinued: as, the proclamation for -the long life of the President--his repairing to church to attend divine -service, accompanied by the two Houses--his re-conducting to his own -house by a committee of the two Houses--the answer to the inaugural -address by each House. - -[22] In this measure of the tonnage duties the House, as in the case of -the impost duties, (and in fact in all other cases in which a law was -wanted,) first settled the provisions of the bill in discussing the -propositions on which it was to be founded, and then directed a -committee to bring in a bill accordingly: but the bill, when brought in, -still open to debate and amendment. This was the safe mode of -legislation, approved by long experience in the British Parliament, and -still more commended by the evils which have grown out of its -abandonment in our Congress. - -[23] The legislative and diplomatic history of the United States affords -abundant evidence of the wisdom of the objection taken in this debate -against the indefinite duration of public acts. To repeal such laws, or -to terminate such treaties, is almost impossible. Besides the difficulty -of getting the three legislative branches to agree at the same time upon -the repeal, or the termination, an interest grows up under the measure -which becomes identified with its existence, and works for its -perpetuity; and when it has been continued for some years, and the -temporary circumstances in which it originated have been forgotten, it -becomes invested with the sanctity of age, and finds protection in the -spirit which dreads change as innovation. Of this character, two acts of -Congress, and two conventions with foreign powers, may be mentioned as -samples of many in our history, to wit: 1. The Factory system of -supplying the Indians with cheap goods through Government agents, -established as a temporary experimental measure for three years, &c., -under Washington, and which was soon found to be working badly both for -the Indians and for the Government, and yet which could not be got rid -of for thirty years! nor until after the whole capital had disappeared. - -2. The salt tax, and the fishing bounties and allowances founded upon -it, revived as a temporary war-tax during the late war with Great -Britain in 1812, and now continued forty years after the war has been -finished! successfully resisting all attempts at repeal, while -burthening the people with an odious tax, and enabling the fishing -interest to take some $300,000 annually (near five millions up to this -time) out of the public treasury, most of it unduly. Of treaties may be -considered as instances the convention with Great Britain for the joint -occupation of the Columbia, where the stipulated right of each party to -terminate it at pleasure upon a year's notice, could not be exercised -for twenty years! and then, with alarms of war and great disturbance to -the country. And also the convention of 1842, with the same power for -keeping up each a squadron on the coast of Africa, (for the suppression -of the slave trade,) for five years; and until either party should give -notice for its abrogation. The five years have been out three times -over! yet the notice cannot be given; and a temporary measure becomes -permanent through an illusory limitation. - -[24] The preamble to this act, and the speeches in favor of it, have -been greatly relied upon in support of a protective tariff, but without -reason, as the speeches themselves, and the rate of duties established, -fully show. Every speech showed revenue to be the object of every -proposed duty--protection to domestic industry being an incident to -result from the accomplishment of that object, and from such moderate -duties as were then imposed--the _ad valorems_ being five per centum, -7-1/2 and 12-1/2; and only a single class going as high as fifteen per -centum, and that class confined to an article of luxury, to wit: -imported pleasure carriages. The specific duties were on the like -moderate scale; yet these moderate duties, thus laid for revenue, gave -all the protection which was then asked, and to the satisfaction of -every part of the Union, and cannot be quoted as any argument for the -protective system which so much disturbed the country. - -[25] This call to order, and enforcement of it, for so slight a -deviation from the point in debate, is a striking illustration of the -business habits of our early Congresses, and accounts for the reason -(_inter alia_) why the debates of that early time were so pithy, -pointed, sententious, instructive and beautiful. - -[26] It is presumable he alluded to Mr. GERRY, a member of a Committee -of Congress, appointed to superintend the Treasury. - -[27] The questions of contested elections, generally depending upon -personal and temporary circumstances, are usually omitted in this -abridgment; but where they rise higher and reach the principles of -Government, or connect themselves with the national history, then they -become questions of general and permanent interest, adding to the stock -of political knowledge; and as such are entitled to historical -commemoration. Upon this view of such questions the debate on the -contested election of William Smith, of South Carolina, is here given; -and that on the contested election of Albert Gallatin, and some others, -will be given hereafter. - -[28] This remark of Mr. MADISON shows the true reason for instituting -the previous question, which was to prevent debate in cases in which -there ought not to be any; cases in which it was necessary to guard the -House against improper discussion. What a departure from that reason has -since taken place in the House of Representatives! for the Senate has, -thus far, been shielded from the introduction of that question and its -consequent abuse. - -[29] It was afterwards renewed and carried, and in that form the -amendments were made, twelve in number, and form additional articles to -the constitution, leaving the text of that instrument unaltered, but -controlled by the amendment where they differ, as in the twelfth -amendment. - -[30] By taking the hour of 5 o'clock for the funeral, the adjournment of -the two Houses, and the loss of a day was obviated, while becoming -respect was shown to the memory of the deceased member. - -[31] Having found a personal attendance on such occasions inconvenient, -President Washington adopted the form of a written message in asking the -advice and consent of the Senate to the formation of the treaties which -he judged to be necessary. Mr. Polk followed this form in consulting the -Senate on the Oregon treaty of 1846. - -[32] The galleries were unusually crowded. - -[33] The committee reported in favor of a residence of two years, and -with that provision the bill was passed. - -[34] Estimated at twenty-one millions of dollars, and distributed among -the States thus: - -New Hampshire, $300,000 -Massachusetts, 4,000,000 -Rhode Island, 200,000 -Connecticut, 1,600,000 -New York, 1,200,000 -New Jersey, 800,000 -Pennsylvania, 2,200,000 -Delaware, 200,000 -Maryland, 800,000 -Virginia, 3,200,000 -North Carolina, 2,200,000 -South Carolina, 4,000,000 -Georgia, 300,000 - ----------- - $21,000,000 - -[35] The motion of Mr. Madison was lost, and with it the largest door -was opened to the pillage of original creditors, the plunder of the -public Treasury and the corruption of Congress which the history of any -Government has ever seen. The immediate mischief was some thirty -millions: it was only the beginning. Assignees of claims have since been -the great suitors to Congress--purchasing for a trifle, and upon -speculation--pursuing the recovery by indirect means--taking no -denial--and gaining in the end what was scouted at the start. It has -given rise to a new profession--a new industrial pursuit, still more -industrious by night than by day--hunting up claims, pressing them upon -Congress; and by organization, skill, perseverance, appliances, and -seductions carrying through the most unfounded demands. By the common -law a _chose in action_ (an executory contract) was not assignable; and -the whole experience of our Government from the assumption of the State -debts, and funding of the revolutionary certificates in 1790 down to the -present day, shows that the interest of the original creditor, the -safety of the Treasury, and the purity of Congress require this wise -common law principle to be applied to all claims upon the Government. - -[36] These proceedings put an end to abolition petitions in Congress. -The Society of which Dr. Franklin was president was purely philanthropic -in its character, and having got the answer to their petition, "that -Congress had no right to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or -their treatment in any of the States," acquiesced in the decision and -did not repeat their application. - -[37] This measure became combined with the Assumption Bill. Each had -failed by small majorities: both were afterwards passed. There was a -strong sectional party for each, but not a majority. The Eastern and -Middle States were for the assumption--the Southern States against it: -these latter were for the Potomac for the seat of Government--the former -for the Susquehannah. The discontent was extreme on each side at losing -its favorite measure. At last the two measures were combined. Two -members from the Potomac who had voted against the assumption, agreed to -change their votes: a few from the Eastern and Middle States who had -voted against the Potomac, agreed to change in its favor; and so the two -measures were passed. Mr. Jefferson gives this account of it, omitting -his strictures: "This measure (the assumption) produced the most bitter -and angry contest ever known in Congress, before or since the union of -the States. I arrived in the midst of it: but a stranger to the ground, -a stranger to the actors in it, so long absent as to have lost all -familiarity with the subject, and as yet unaware of its object, I took -no concern in it. The great and trying question, however, was lost in -the House of Representatives. So high were the feuds excited on this -subject that, on its rejection, business was suspended. Congress met and -adjourned from day to day without doing any thing, the parties being too -much out of temper to do business together. The Eastern members -threatened secession and dissolution. Hamilton was in despair. As I was -going to the President's one day, I met him in the street. He walked me -backwards and forwards before the President's door for half an hour. He -painted pathetically the temper into which the Legislature had been -wrought--the disgust of those who were called the creditor States--the -danger of the secession of their members, and of the separation of the -States. He observed that the members of the administration ought to act -in concert--that though this question was not of my department, yet a -common duty should make it a common concern--that the President was the -centre on which all administrative questions ultimately rested, and that -all of us should rally around him, and support, with joint efforts, -measures approved by him; and that the question having been lost by a -small majority only, it was probable that an appeal from me to the -judgment and discretion of some of my friends, might effect change in -the vote, and the machine of government, now suspended, might be again -set in motion. I told him that I was really a stranger to the whole -subject; that not having yet informed myself of the system of finances -adopted, I knew not how far this was a necessary sequence; that -undoubtedly, if its rejection endangered a dissolution of our Union at -this incipient stage, I should deem that the most unfortunate of all -consequences, to avert which all partial and temporary evils should be -yielded. I proposed to him, however, to dine with me the next day, and I -would invite another friend or two, bring them into conference together, -and I thought it impossible that reasonable men, consulting together -coolly, could fail, by some mutual sacrifices of opinion, to form a -compromise which would save the Union. The discussion took place. I -could take no part in it but an exhortatory one, because I was a -stranger to the circumstances which should govern it. But it was finally -agreed, that whatever importance had been attached to the rejection of -this proposition, the preservation of the Union, and of concord among -the States, was more important, and that therefore it would be better -that the vote of rejection should be rescinded--to effect which some -members should change their votes. But it was observed that this pill -would be peculiarly bitter to the Southern States, and that some -concomitant measure should be adopted to sweeten it a little to them. -There had before been propositions to fix the seat of Government either -at Philadelphia, or at Georgetown on the Potomac; and it was thought -that by giving it to Philadelphia for ten years, and to Georgetown -permanently afterwards, this might, as an anodyne, calm in some degree -the ferment which might be excited by the other measure alone: so two of -the Potomac members (White and Lee, but the former with a revulsion of -stomach almost convulsive) agreed to change their votes; and Hamilton -undertook to carry the other point." - -[38] Could the extent to which the evil has since been carried, have -been foreseen at the time, the state of the vote might have been very -different. - -[39] Topics of temporary interest omitted. - -[40] At this commencement of the second Congress, being in the third -year of Washington's administration, and when the finances had been -brought to order and system by General Hamilton, and the machinery of -government put into fair and full operation, a proper point presents -itself to look at the expenses of the new Government, both as a fact at -the time, and as a point of comparison in the future. In the annual -speech which the President delivered to the two Houses, he congratulated -Congress on the adequacy of the revenues which had been provided, and on -the prospect that no new burthens would be required to be laid upon the -people. This was a gratifying announcement, and makes it desirable to -see what was the revenue at that time, and to what objects applied. The -first inquiry is answered by a recurrence to the two tariff acts which -had been passed--one at the first, the other at the second session of -the first Congress. The first act had produced near two millions of -dollars, which, though five times beyond what was necessary for the -support of the Government, was not sufficient for the demands of the -public debt and the Indian war raging in the North-west. An augmentation -of the duties became necessary, and was accomplished in the second act, -but still on a scale of moderation. The _ad valorems_ were 5 per centum, -7-1/2, 10, 12-1/2, 15; but in counting their product, only the two first -may be considered, as the mass of the importations fell under those -rates; to wit, above 16 millions under the two first, and less than one -million under the three last; so that the 5 and the 7-1/2 _ad valorems_ -may be considered as the effective duties, and the actual levy upon the -imports. The list of specific duties was enlarged in the second bill, -(the Secretary of the Treasury wisely saying that the experience of the -world showed that duties upon quantities, ascertainable by weight and -measure, were the only ones capable of safe and cheap collection, and -therefore to be preferred as far as possible.) and their rate increased, -but still in moderate proportion. The produce of the whole was about -3-1/2 millions, which was nearly nine times as much as the support of -the Government required, leaving nearly eight parts out of nine to go to -the public debt, the Indian war, and other extraordinary objects. This -important statement requires to be verified, which is done by referring -to General Hamilton's estimate of appropriations at the commencement of -this first session of the second Congress; to wit, CIVIL LIST, -comprehending compensation to the President and Vice President--the -Departments of State, Treasury and War--the Board of Commissioners--the -government of the North-western Territory--the Judiciary--the two Houses -of Congress--contingencies incident to the civil list: in all -$328,653.00; to which was afterwards added $87,000 for diplomatic -intercourse, increasing the amount of the annual estimate to $415,000. -The public debt, the Indian war, and other extraordinaries took all the -rest, amounting to about three millions; so that this small revenue, -produced by such moderate duties upon the small importation of that day, -sufficed for the support of the Government, for carrying on an Indian -war as far off, (the distance measured by time and cost of march and -transportation,) and with Indians far more formidable than any now in -the world; and also for the interest of the public debt. This is a -result for statesmen to consider, and to bring into comparison with the -present state of things; and the reflection may be, that with the same -spirit of economy which, then prevailed, the same knowledge of the -objects for which the Federal Government was created, and the same -determination to confine its action to those objects, the same moderate -rate of duties on the large importations of this day would be entirely -sufficient, both for the support of the Government and for all -extraordinary objects. The cost of collecting the revenue in that early -period also presents a point for retrospect and comparison; it was then -about 3 and 1/3 per cent., and according to the principle of such -collections, should become less in proportion to the larger amount -collected. On the contrary, the increase has been inordinate! and is, -perhaps, now hardly ascertainable, but cutting deep into the national -income. - -[41] The case of Pennsylvania goes far to sustain this view. The policy -of William Penn was that of justice and humanity to the Indians, and his -colony was long exempt from its calamity of savage hostility. It had -been settled seventy years--from 1680 to 1753--before an Indian killed -one of its inhabitants, and then in consequence of a disturbance in a -neighboring province. Such an exemption, for so long a time, and while -all the other colonies were involved in Indian wars from their early -settlement, while so honorable to Penn's government and to the -inoffensive manners of the inhabitants, goes far to show that the -Indians were manageable by good treatment, and that, although savage, -their savageism was not of a kind to resist the effects of justice and -kindness. - -[42] This speech, of Cornplanter, the famous chief of the Seneca tribe, -(one of the Six Nations,) does not appear in the debates, having been -confidentially read to the House; but it is found in the State papers of -the time, and is, as the allusions to it implied, a plea in behalf of -the Indians against the wrongs of the whites. Intrusion upon their -lands, fraudulent purchases, and killing unoffending Indians, are the -subjects of complaint. The speech opens with a characteristic appeal to -Washington. - -"Father: The voice of the Seneca nation speaks to you, the great -councillor in whose heart the wise men of all the Thirteen Fires -(Thirteen United States) have placed their wisdom. It may be very small -in your ears, and we therefore entreat you to hearken with attention: -for we are about to speak of things which are to us very great. When -your army entered the country of the Six Nations, we called you the town -destroyer; and to this day, when that name is heard, our women look -behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the necks of -their mothers. Our councillors and warriors are men, and cannot be -afraid; but their hearts are grieved with the fears of our women and -children, and desire it to be buried so deep as to be heard no more. -When you gave us peace, we called you Father, because you promised to -secure us in the possession of our lands. Do this, and, so long as the -lands shall remain, that beloved name will live in the heart of every -Seneca." - -Then followed a complaint for wrongs done them in their lands; to which -Washington replied that that wrong was done before the new Government -was established and the management of Indian affairs given up to it; but -that they would now be protected. This reply fell short of his -expectations, and the Cornplanter rejoined: - -"Father: Your speech written on the great paper, is to us like the first -light of the morning to a sick man, whose pulse beats too strongly in -his temples, and prevents him from sleep. He sees it and rejoices, but -is not cured." - -Of killing and robbing their people he said: - -"Three men and one woman have been killed at Big Beaver Creek, and they -were good people, and some of the white people will testify this. -Twenty-seven men came from another State, and murdered these men in the -Quaker State where they had come to trade, and took away all the horses, -and all the goods they had purchased from the traders." - -The President answers to this complaint that he is very angry to hear of -this murder and robbery--that he will have it inquired into, and will -comfort the friends and relations of the persons who were killed, and -make them compensation for the horses and property taken; and do all in -his power to bring the murderers to justice, and that he will consider -the crime as bad, exactly, as if committed against so many white people, -and will use the same endeavors to bring them to punishment. Satisfied -with the assurances which the President gave them, the Cornplanter, and -the other chiefs with him, took a formal and affectionate leave in -writing; in which they say: - -"Father: No Seneca ever goes from the fire of his friend until he has -said to him 'I am going.' We therefore now tell you, that we are setting -out for our own country. Father: We thank you from our hearts, that we -now know there is a country we may call our own, and on which we may lie -down in peace. We see that there will be peace between your children and -our children, and our hearts are very glad." - -On arriving at Pittsburg on their way home, for these interviews with -Washington took place in Philadelphia, these children of the forest with -a native sentiment of graceful politeness, wrote back to him to let him -know how they were getting along, the whole expressed in two brief -sentences. - -"Through the whole Quaker State, as we came up the road, we were treated -well, and they took good care of us until we came here. One misfortune -happened only, that one of our wagons is not yet arrived here, the one -we first engaged, and with the goods you presented to us." - -They always speak affectionately of the Quaker State, and in one of the -speeches to President Washington, having occasion to mention a promise -made to them by the State, said: - -"The Quaker State will do what it promises." - -[43] Mr. JEFFERSON, Secretary of State, in his Report on the fisheries. - -[44] Letters of the Secretary of War and Quartermaster General. - -[45] For an authorized establishment of 5,120 men, of all arms, the -actual establishment being about 3,600. It would be curious to compare -the army expenses of that day with those of this day, and the -comparative care with which Congress looked into these expenses at the -two different periods. The United States were engaged in Indian wars -then as now, and upon a theatre (time and cost of getting to it -considered) as far off as our Indian wars are at present; for, the -distance estimated in that way, is less now to California than it was -then to the Miami of the Lakes: yet a cost of something like $200 a head -was considered extravagant, and such as to call upon Congress for an -inquiry. - -[46] The bill came down from the Senate where debates were not -published, and seems to have passed the House without debate, and almost -without division, there being but seven votes against it, and two of -these (Messrs. Mercer and Parker) from slave States. Nor does it appear -to what part of the bill they objected, whether to the part in relation -to fugitives from justice, or to those who fled from service, for both -classes of fugitives were comprehended in the same bill. It was passed -on a message from President Washington, founded on a communication from -the Governor of Pennsylvania in relation to a fugitive from justice who -had taken refuge in Virginia, and because it was necessary to have an -act of Congress to give effect to the rendition clause in the -constitution. There was but little necessity in those times, nor for -long after, for an act of Congress to authorize the recovery of fugitive -slaves. The laws of the free States, and still more the force of public -opinion, were the owners' best safeguards. Public opinion was against -the abduction of slaves; and if any one was seduced from his owner, it -was done furtively and secretly, without show or force, and as any other -moral offence would be committed. State laws favored the owner, and to a -greater extent than the act of Congress did, or could. In Pennsylvania -there was an act (it was passed in 1780, and only repealed in 1847) -discriminating between the traveller and sojourner, and the permanent -resident, allowing the former to remain six months in the State before -his slaves would become subject to the emancipation laws; and, in the -case of a federal government officer, allowing as much more time as his -duties required him to remain. New York had the same act, only varying -in time, which was nine months. While these two acts were in force, and -supported by public opinion, the traveller and sojourner was safe with -his slaves in those States, and the same in the other free States. There -was no trouble about fugitive slaves in those times. This act of 1793 -did not grow out of any such trouble, but out of the case of a fugitive -from justice. It was that case which brought the subject before -Congress; and, in the act that was passed, the case of fugitives from -justice was first provided for, the first and second sections of the act -being given to that branch of the subject, and the third and fourth to -the other--all brief and plain, and executable without expense or fuss. -In the case of a slave the owner was allowed to seize him wherever he -saw him, by day or by night, Sundays or week-days, just as if he was in -his own State, and a penalty of $500 attached to any person who resisted -or obstructed him in this seizure. The only authority he wanted was -after the seizure, and to justify the carrying back, and for that -purpose, the affidavit of the owner, or his agent was sufficient. This -act was perfect, except in relying upon State officers, as well as -federal officers to execute it, these State officers not being subject -to the federal law, and being forbid to act after slavery became a -subject of political agitation. - -[47] This was a party election, and as such conducted on both sides. -Marshall, in his Life of Washington, says of it: "By each party a -candidate for the chair was brought forward; and Mr. Muhlenberg, who was -supported by the opposition, was elected by a majority of ten votes -against Mr. Sedgwick whom the Federalists supported." - -[48] The debate on this subject was one of the most elaborate, and most -replete with knowledge of commercial principles and statistics, which -our Congress has furnished. It grew out of the clause in the -constitution which gave Congress power to regulate commerce with foreign -nations, and gives the interpretation of that clause by its authors, -which was wholly different in its nature, as well as distinct in its -grant, from the power to lay and collect duties on imports. The latter -was to raise revenue: the former to coerce nations into reciprocity of -liberal trade with us by making a discrimination in the trade of nations -to the disadvantage of the nations which refused to come into reciprocal -arrangements with us. The discrimination proposed by Mr. Madison was 5 -per centum, and was levelled against Britain, and was only defeated by -five votes. In this great debate, as in that upon the Bank of the United -States, the genius of Hamilton and Jefferson were pitted against each -other, each having made opposite reports on each question, which were -the magazines from which the opposing speakers in Congress chiefly armed -themselves--Mr. Madison being the chief exponent of the Jeffersonian -side, and Mr. William Smith, of South Carolina, that of General -Hamilton. It is curious that while this power to regulate foreign -commerce by Congress, was one of the chief causes for forming the -Federal Government, yet it has never been exercised by Congress, and -seems to be a power overlooked, or confounded with that to lay duties -and imposts for revenue. Though not yet exercised, it is a power which -has found need for its exercise, and will find it again. Our immense -commerce, if all articles are taxed even moderately, will produce far -more revenue than the economical and fair administration of the -Government would require: a large part of it would be left free, as -after the payment of the public debt in President Jackson's time; and as -may be again after the extinction of the public debt, and the -introduction of economy into the expenditures. A moderate duty on -two-thirds of the importations may then be sufficient for the -expenditures of the Government, leaving (say) one-third to go upon the -free list. Now the nations which receive the chief benefit of that large -free importation ought to reciprocate the favor by taking something -free, or at a moderate duty, from us. "_Free commerce is not to be given -in exchange for burthens and impositions_;" and that was the principle -of Mr. Madison's resolutions, which were barely defeated, and that by -the influence of the mercantile class engaged in commerce with Great -Britain. A full view of this subject is given in the first volume of the -Thirty Years' View, in giving an account of the effort of the author to -revive Mr. Madison's plan. - -[49] It is grateful to behold the immense progress which the humanity of -nations has made. Great Britain is no longer subject to the imputation -of exciting pirates and savages against us. She has long since ceased to -instigate Indian hostilities, and long ago joined us in humbling -Algiers. Far from stimulating barbarian war, she even interposes to save -us from civilized war with great nations--witness the proffered -mediation of William the Fourth to settle the difficulty between France -and the United States, in General Jackson's time: a beautiful instance -of old animosity extinct under time, and former evil deeds succeeded by -works of kindness and respect. - -[50] This seventh, article stipulated indemnity to the owners of the -deported slaves. - -[51] Mr. Jefferson resigned his place of Secretary of State at the end -of this session, and was succeeded by Mr. Edmund Randolph, of Virginia. -Of the resignation and character of Mr. Jefferson, Marshall thus speaks: -"This gentleman withdrew from political station at a moment when he -stood particularly high in the esteem of his countrymen. His fixed -opposition to the financial schemes which had been proposed by the -Secretary of the Treasury, and approved by the Legislative and Executive -Departments of the Government; his ardent and undisguised attachment to -the revolutionary party in France; the dispositions which he was -declared to possess in regard to Great Britain; and the popularity of -his opinions respecting the Constitution of the United States; had -devoted to him that immense party whose sentiments were supposed to -comport with his on most or all of these interesting subjects. To the -opposite party he had, of course, become particularly unacceptable. But -the publication of his correspondence with the French minister, _Genet_, -dissipated much of the prejudice which had been excited against him. He -had, in that correspondence, maintained, with great ability, the -opinions embraced by the Federalists on those points of difference which -had arisen between the two Republics, and which, having become -universally the subjects of discussion, had in some measure dissipated -those topics on which parties had previously divided." - -[52] The ratification of the Treaty, with the exception of the 12th -article, was by the following vote: YEAS--_Messrs._ Bingham, Bradford, -Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, Frelinghuysen, Gunn, Henry, King, Latimer, -Livermore, Marshall, Paine, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong, -Trumbull, and Vining--20. NAYS--_Messrs._ Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, -Butler, Jackson, Langdon, Martin, Mason, Robinson, and Tazewell--10. -This excepted article related to the direct trade with the British West -Indies; and the recommendation added to the clause of ratification was -with a view to obtain the full enjoyment of that trade. This was in the -year 1795, and the object of the recommendation was not obtained until -above thirty years thereafter, and under the administration of General -Jackson. - -[53] This recommendation to treat further for obtaining indemnity for -the slaves carried off by the British during the Revolution, remained -without effect, and all claim to that indemnification was relinquished -by the treaty of 1796. But the same deportation of slaves took place in -the war of 1812, followed by the same stipulation for indemnity in the -treaty which closed that war, which was contained in the treaty which -closed the war of the Revolution; and attended by the same refusal to -comply with it. It was not until after twelve years of further -negotiation, and under the administration of Mr. John Quincy Adams, and -under the arbitrament of the Emperor Alexander, of Russia, that -indemnity for these deported slaves of 1812 was received. - -[54] This was the first instance of any heated debate in answering an -address from Washington. It became a party discussion on some points, -especially in relation to what was said of the Democratic societies. -Marshall says of it: "A very eloquent and animated debate ensued, which -terminated in the Committee of the Whole by striking out the words, -"self-created societies"--47 voting for, and 45 against expunging them." -The question was renewed in the House; and the Chairman of the committee -being opposed in sentiment to the Speaker, who was now placed in the -chair, the majority was precisely changed, and the words were -reinstated. This was a victory for the Administration, but soon lost, -the next being in favor of the opposition. - -[55] He resigned accordingly, no further investigation being moved with -respect to him. Recording the event, Marshall says: "Seldom has any -minister excited in a higher, or more extensive degree than General -Hamilton, the opposite passions of love and hate. His talents were of a -grade too exalted not to receive from all the tribute of profound -respect; and his integrity and honor as a man, not less than his -official rectitude, though slandered at a distance, were admitted to be -superior to reproach by those enemies who knew him." - -[56] A celebrated painter who died in 1554. Speaking of this artist, -Henry the Eighth once said, "Out of seven ploughmen I can make seven -Lords, but out of seven Lords I cannot make even one Holbein." - -[57] Col. Timothy Pickering, in place of Gen. Knox, resigned. - -[58] The distinction was invidious, and soon fell under the ban of -public opinion; but the mode of making it was commendable, and freed the -Senators voting for the increase from the imputation of a personal -motive. - -[59] This was nominally a private petition, but in reality a question -between the State of North Carolina and the Federal Government in -relation to their relative rights over Indian lands within the chartered -limits of the State. - -[60] This was the first discussion with open doors, except on the -contested election of Mr. Gallatin. - -[61] This was the first formal opposition to the mode of answering the -President's Speech at the opening of the Sessions of Congress, though -many members had from the first been repugnant to it as being too close -an imitation of the British mode of opening the Sessions of Parliament -by an Address from the sovereign in person, an answer to it, and the -presentation of the answer by the House in a body. - -[62] DESCRIPTION OF THE FLAG.--It is tricolor, made of the richest silk, -and highly ornamented with allegorical paintings. In the middle, a cock -is represented, the emblem of France, standing on a thunderbolt. At two -corners, diagonally opposite, are represented two bombshells bursting; -at the other two corners, other military emblems. Round the whole is a -rich border of oak leaves, alternately yellow and green; the first -shaded with brown and heightened with gold; the latter shaded with black -and relieved with silver; in this border are entwined warlike musical -instruments. The edge is ornamented with a rich gold fringe. The staff -is covered with black velvet, crowned with a golden pike, and enriched -with the tricolor cravatte and a pair of tassels worked in gold, and the -three national colors. The flag is to be deposited in the archives of -the United States. - -[63] Counsel for the prisoner. - -[64] Of all the members who opposed this trading establishment from the -commencement, Mr. Macon was the only one that remained in Congress until -it was abolished in 1822. - -[65] This motion, going to the destruction of the Mint itself, brought -up an incidental debate on the right of Congress to withhold -appropriations for the support of existing establishments--which is the -only part of the debate on the bill which retains a surviving interest. - -[66] This being the last year of Washington's administration, it -presents a proper occasion for seeing what the support of the Government -then cost, both as an inquiry pertinent in itself, and as furnishing a -point of comparison for the future. This is shown in the introductory -clause to the appropriations, stating, "That for defraying the -expenditure of the civil list of the United States for the year 1796, -together with the incidental and contingent expenses of the several -departments and officers thereof, there be appropriated a sum not -exceeding $530,392 85 cents." The objects to which this expenditure -went, were, 1. Salary to President and Vice President. 2. Compensation -to the members of Congress, with all the incidental expenses of that -body. 3. The federal judiciary, with all its contingent expenses. 4. The -Executive departments, with all their subordinate offices and expenses -of every kind. 5. The Mint establishment. 6. The light-house -establishment. 7. North-western and South-western territorial -governments; with a few other small objects. For each of these items a -specific sum was appropriated, of which, the appropriations for Congress -were, for the pay of the members and all the officers and attendants, -(estimated for a session of six months,) $193,460; and the expenses, -fuel, stationery, printing, and all other contingencies of the two -Houses, were $11,500. For diplomatic intercourse, $40,000. - -[67] And proved to be so in this case, though it required thirty years' -experience to show it. When the system was brought to a close in 1822, -it was found that the whole capital was gone. - -[68] This was the first attempt to pay members of Congress as salaried -officers. - -[69] This resolution would seem to embody Mr. Madison's interpretation -of the clause in the constitution which authorizes Congress to establish -post roads. - -[70] This explanatory note was written by Mr. Gales, editor of the -Annals of Congress, who has rendered a valuable service to the student -of political history in bringing these two great debates, each by -itself, into a single and connected form. They are the groundwork of -high constitutional knowledge; and, whether for the intrinsic importance -of their matter, the close acquaintance of the speakers with their -subject, or as fine specimens of parliamentary debating, they stand -forth as debates of the first class which our congressional history has -afforded. Marshall, in his history, says of them: "Never had a greater -display been made of argument, of eloquence, and of passion; and never -had a subject been discussed in which all classes of their -fellow-citizens took a deeper interest." The first debate related to the -Treaty-making power, and how far the House of Representatives had the -right to refuse assent to a treaty which required an appropriation of -money, or which regulated commerce, or which required the exercise of -any other power specifically granted to Congress. The second applied to -the execution of the commercial Treaty of 1794, with Great Britain; one -party contending that the Congress was bound to make the appropriation -to carry it into effect--the other denying the obligation and claiming -the right of a discretionary power. The two debates were upon kindred -subjects, and before the House at the same time, yet kept distinct, in -the discussion, neither sliding into the other, and one finished before -the other began; such was the closeness with which members then adhered -to the subject, even in Committee of the Whole, and which gave to these -early debates of our Congress so much point and power, and so much -attraction to the hearer then and to the reader now. An abridgment can -only present a part of these great debates, which cover above 300 pages -of the Annals of Congress; but the whole argument will be seen on both -sides, as the pith and marrow of each main speech will be given. - -[71] This course was long followed, no Indian Treaty being held except -authorized by an act of Congress, which was the Legislative consent to -the grants of money which such Treaties usually contain, and for the -payment of which an Act of Congress would be necessary. And in the two -great cases of acquiring foreign territory, (Louisiana and Florida,) -under Presidents contemporary with the formation of the constitution, -and which required large appropriations to carry them into effect, the -consent of the Legislative branch of the Government was sought and -obtained before the Executive began to act--the law in both cases -originating in the House of Representatives as the proper initiatory -branch when money was to be paid which the people would have to raise. - -[72] Thus the House, by a majority of 25, passed the call upon the -President for the papers, and upon the declared ground of a _right_ to -judge the Treaty, as it contained a regulation of commerce, and also -required an appropriation of money. President Washington received the -call in the sense in which it was made, and although he had no objection -to furnishing the papers, and had laid them before the Senate, (whence -they became public,) yet he deemed it his duty to resist the claim of -right asserted by the House, and therefore to refuse the papers--which -he did in a closely reasoned Message, an epitome of the arguments used -in the House on that side. - -[73] It is seen in this answer of President Washington, that he holds -the assent of the House to be unnecessary to the validity of any Treaty -whatever, which, of course, includes the class contended for by the -House, but makes the question broader than the one presented by its -limited claim. - -[74] In this resolution the House specifies the class of Treaties over -which it claims a right of judgment, and limits it to those which -involve a matter which has been specially granted to Congress--as an -appropriation of money, or the regulation of commerce. - -[75] And thus the President and the House were completely at issue--the -House having expressly asserted, by a majority of 27, a right to judge, -not every Treaty, or Treaties generally, but those which involved the -exercise of any power granted by the constitution to itself. Trained in -the school of this majority, the author of this Abridgment, as often as -the occasion required, has maintained the same right for the House; and -especially in the case of the territorial purchase from Mexico in 1854. - -[76] Mr. Hillhouse had submitted a resolution in favor of carrying the -Treaty into effect, and afterwards Mr. Maclay submitted one, declaring -the contrary; and the question was, which should be taken up? Mr. -Madison, as a skilful parliamentary tactician, preferred that of Mr. -Hillhouse, as putting the burden of the affirmative upon the adversary, -always an advantage in the debate, and, in an even vote, always decisive -for the negative side. - -[77] The following is the letter received by the committee appointed to -inquire into the situation of the son of General LAFAYETTE: - -[TRANSLATION.] - - "RAMAPAGH, (New Jersey,) March 28, 1796. - -"SIR: I have just received the honorable resolution which the merits of -my father have procured for me. Deign to express to the Representatives -of the people of America his gratitude--my youth forbids me yet to speak -of mine. Every day recalls to me what he taught me, at every period of -his life, so full of vicissitudes, and what he has repeated in a letter, -written from the depth of his prison. 'I am convinced (he says) that the -goodness of the United States and the tenderness of my paternal friend -will need nothing to excite them. - -"Arrived in America some months since, I live in the country, in New -Jersey, occupied in the pursuits of my education. I have no wants; if I -had felt any, I should have answered to the paternal solicitude of the -President of the United States, either by confiding them to him, or by -accepting his offers. I shall hereafter consider it a duty, to impart -them to the House of Representatives, which deigns to inquire into my -situation. - -"I am as happy as a continual inquietude relative to the object of my -first affections will permit. I have found benevolence wherever I have -been known, and have often had the satisfaction of hearing those, who -were ignorant of my connections, speak of their interest in the fate of -my father, express their admiration of, and partake the gratitude I -feel, for the generous Dr. Bollman, who has done so much to break his -chains. - -"It is amid all these motives of emulation, that I shall continue my -studies. Every day more convinced of the duties which are imposed by the -goodness of Congress, and the names I have the honor to bear. - - "GEO. WASHINGTON MOTIER LAFAYETTE. - The Hon. EDWARD LIVINGSTON, Chairman," &c. - -[78] This vote of the House to carry the Treaty into effect, was no -abandonment of the right it had asserted to judge its merits, and to -grant or withhold the appropriation according to its discretion. The -discussion sufficiently shows this, and that many members took care to -save their votes from any misconstruction on this head. A sense of -expediency, and not the force of obligation, carried the vote; and -certainly the inducements to let the Treaty stand were very great. -Marshall sums them up thus: "If Congress refused to perform the Treaty -on the part of the United States, a compliance on the part of Great -Britain could not be expected. The posts on the great lakes would still -be occupied by British garrisons: no compensation would be made for -American vessels illegally captured: the hostile dispositions which had -been excited, would be restored with increased aggravation: and that -these dispositions must infallibly lead to war, was implicitly -believed." The amount to be appropriated was only $90,000, a sum -entirely insignificant, and only to be contested on account of the -principle its appropriation would involve. Yet the insignificance of the -sum, and with all the inducements to let the Treaty stand, and under -such a President as Washington, barely saved it from defeat! so jealous -was the Democratic party of that day of the rights of Congress, and so -determined was the House to remain master of the public purse. Ninety -thousand dollars was all the money at stake; but what has since been -seen? An Executive offering fifty millions for a slip of territory! and -one hundred millions, and afterwards two hundred, for an island! -Actually negotiating a Treaty of twenty millions, which the Senate -reduced to ten! and all, not only without the sanction, but without the -knowledge of the Legislative power. To admit that Congress would be -bound to appropriate such sums if the offers had ripened into Treaty -stipulations, would be to admit that the President, Senate, and a -foreign potentate were masters of the appropriating power; and, of -course, of the taxing and borrowing power, and of all the means by which -money was to be raised. Even a discretionary power over the -appropriation, after the Treaty has been made, is but a slight defence -for the treasury, there being always in Congress, as in all public -bodies, men to yield to circumstances,--good easy men to be persuaded; -timid men to be scared; venal men to be purchased. And out of these -classes enough are usually found to turn the scale, when upright men -divide upon a large measure. The only safe way is that of consultation -beforehand, as practised by Washington in the early part of his -Administration, and by the Presidents under whom Louisiana, Florida, and -California were acquired. - -[79] The claim was renewed continually, and fruitlessly, until the year -1832, when it was allowed, and the horse paid for according to his -certificated specie value at the time he was taken in the year -1781--$1,500. - -[80] Up to this time and afterwards, until the year 1798, there was no -Naval Department, or Secretary of the Navy, and the marine, as well as -the land force, was under the charge of the Secretary of War--which -accounts for the appropriations of the two branches of the service -appearing in the same bill. - -[81] The whole sum appropriated for the Military and Naval -Establishments of the year, was, $1,318,873--the strength of the army -being 3000 men, and the debate is given as an instance of the closeness -with which appropriations were scrutinized in the early ages of the -Government, and also as showing the expense of maintaining troops in the -north-west--then as far off (time and cost considered) as our Pacific -possessions now are. - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, -from 1789 to 1856, Vol. I (of 16), by Thomas Hart Benton - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DEBATES OF CONGRESS, 1789-1856 *** - -***** This file should be named 40499-8.txt or 40499-8.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/0/4/9/40499/ - -Produced by Curtis Weyant, Josephine Paolucci and the -Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at - www.gutenberg.org/license. - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 -North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email -contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the -Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |